Caught on video - censure Bush?

[MehYam]

Sorry if this is old. The news itself is old, but I haven't seen it put so poignantly before.

Watch it twice for full effect.

[Cuda68-2]

We should have taken Saddam Husain down years ago. Right, wrong or otherwise I stand by the president's choice and approve of the action. We seem to forget they have been attacking and killing us since the late 50's. It is long over due that we say enough is enough and back it up. If they want to play, well heck lets play.

[Zuruck]

If I remember correctly, Bush's own administration stated that there was no link between 9/11 and Saddam. So what is he playing? Games with the UN? It would appear that he was lying to them, but now we havent found any weapons have we? Play with Al Qaida? I thought we were in Afghanistan. Apparently, most people seem to think they're one in the same. Bin Laden hated Iraq, they were a very secular nation and did not respond to the Muslim extremism that he wants. Saddam was a bad apple, but how many are there? How many times does Bush need to lie before you idiots get it?

[index_html]

The dead horse gets beaten again ...

------------
G.W. Bush - 2003 State of the Union:
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent," Bush said. "Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein ... is not an option."
------------

Given that the president said this before Congress, the nation, and the world, I'd accept this as the administration's official stance on the subject prior to the war. If you notice, both of Rumsfeld's quotes are from 2002 and were thus supplanted by Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech. Saying this requires presidential censure is just political bottom feeding.

[Top Wop]

Right on, Cuda.

[bash]

Iraq-al Qaeda link
We have obtained a document discovered in Iraq from the files of the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS). The report provides new evidence of links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
The 1993 document, in Arabic, bears the logo of the Iraqi intelligence agency and is labeled "top secret" on each of its 20 pages.
The report is a list of IIS agents who are described as "collaborators."
On page 14, the report states that among the collaborators is "the Saudi Osama bin Laden."
The document states that bin Laden is a "Saudi businessman and is in charge of the Saudi opposition in Afghanistan."
"And he is in good relationship with our section in Syria," the document states, under the signature "Jabar."
The document was obtained by the Iraqi National Congress and first disclosed on the CBS program "60 Minutes" by INC leader Ahmed Chalabi.
A U.S. official said the document appears authentic.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/inring.htm

[Zuruck]

I have a very simple question for you war beaters. Do you think that the US Govt. should be able to attack any country it wants, for whatever reason it wants? It's a very simple yes or no. I think no.

[kurupt]

how is this starting war with whoever we want? isn't finding saddam and/or osama more preventing future deaths than exerting our larger-than-everyone-else-right-now penis?

If I remember correctly, Bush's own administration stated that there was no link between 9/11 and Saddam. So what is he playing?

who cares if saddam had any connection with 9/11? because he doesn't that makes it ok to let him do whatever he wants? who cares if osama didn't either? would it not benefit the world at large to remove them both from international society?

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

summed up my opinion ^

[De Rigueur]

I have a very simple question for you war beaters. Do you think that the US Govt. should be able to attack any country it wants, for whatever reason it wants? It's a very simple yes or no. I think no.

I think a more important and more realistic question should be: is attacking a country ever justified.

[CDN_Merlin]

But is attacking a country without just cause also an act of terrorism? I mean, it seems that Bush didn't have a reason to attack Iraq cause now we know the WMD reason was a lie.

Even though Saddam is a terrorist, does it give anyone the right to attack another country?

What if a bigger country than the US decided that the US is a terrorist Natoin for attacking countries without just cause or valid reason? Would you like that? I doubt it.

I'm not saying I'm pro-Saddam, I'm just looking at the other sie of the coin, so don't start jumping down my throat accusing me of supporting terrorist.

[De Rigueur]

I think the justifacation for attacking Iraq is debatable. I happen to think the attack was justified. Even if the WMD situation was not as bad as everyone thought, there were other reasons: support for terror groups and Saddam's actions against his own people.

"Even though Saddam is a terrorist, does it give anyone the right to attack another country? "

I suppose that if it gives any right, it only gives the right to attack Saddam.

"What if a bigger country than the US decided that the US is a terrorist Natoin for attacking countries without just cause or valid reason? Would you like that? I doubt it"

Substitute Al Qaeda for "a bigger country than the US" . It appears that anyone can call any country or group a terrorist.

I wouldn't say that you support terrorists, but you do seem to require a lot of justification for attacking terrorists. If the US action against Iraq did not meet your standard of justification, then I quess I have a different standard..

[Will Robinson]

But is attacking a country without just cause also an act of terrorism? I mean, it seems that Bush didn't have a reason to attack Iraq cause now we know the WMD reason was a lie.

Yes, without just cause would be a problem. But that was not the case.

Ignoring all the detailed violations of cease fire agreements and numerous violations of U.N. resolutions and pretending the U.S. had no just cause is the lie.

Sorry, no video of bin Ladden and Saddam caught red-handed carrying a nuke and even that would be disputed by some. However that isn't the only way Saddam could of been, and in fact was, in violation and thereby sealed his own fate.

[CDN_Merlin]

Ignoring all the detailed violations of cease fire agreements and numerous violations of U.N. resolutions and pretending the U.S. had no just cause is the lie.

But didn't Bush lie about why he was attacking them? I remember him saying they did it cause they had found proof or had intelligence reports that Saddam had WMD. Yet, 1 year later, you have yet to find any.

I wouldn't say that you support terrorists, but you do seem to require a lot of justification for attacking terrorists. If the US action against Iraq did not meet your standard of justification, then I quess I have a different standard..

I don't support terrorists, but what makes the US different from them when you attack a country just cause you don't like the president(whether he is a terrorist or not dones't matter).

You fail to understand what I'm trying to get accross. I'm not saying what is happening is wrong, I'm just being neutral in my point of view.

[Will Robinson]

In the state of the union speech he gave a long list of reasons, WMD's were not even top of the list. The whole congress voted in favor of war. THEN, after that, the press and everyone hyped the WMD angle and Bush and Co. went with it because it seemed to be a really popular point. Bad decision and he's paying for it...he deserves the criticism for hyping the WMD intel, ignoring countering views from within his own administration etc.
However, the poor salesmanship, even misleading salesmanship on his part doesn't detract from the very real and valid reasons we had.

I guess what I'm trying to point out is, in spite of Bush's bad job of framing the argument for war he did have justification for it. Condem him for his part in the hype but don't try to say america, or our allie's, didn't have just cause to go get rid of Saddam because that just isn't true.

Also, I believe he didn't mind hyping the intel because he really believed, like every other leader did, that Saddam did have the WMD's. In fact we know he did, just no one knew they were really all gone...if they are.

If there were no politics involved in the mix I think the world would have a much less critical view of Bush regarding his decision to get Saddam.

[Lothar]

Sorry if this is old. The news itself is old, but I haven't seen it put so poignantly before.

Watch it twice for full effect.

Censure Bush? Because of something Rumsfeld said? Huh? Am I missing something here?

Seriously... the first quote there was entirely accurate (paraphrased: "some have said the threat is definitely 5-7 years out. I'm not so sure...") The second, they got Rumsfeld saying "imminent threat" (though not about WMD.) OK, so they got Rumsfeld -- so we're supposed to censure Bush? Why? For what reason?

This is why I don't take moveon.org seriously -- everything is overblown and overhyped. Instead of reasonable criticism, it's "Bush is an evil lying cheating nazi retard!!11!~!"

[Dedman]

We seem to forget they have been attacking and killing us since the late 50's.

Who is they?

On a related note:

Aide: Rumsfeld Urged Iraq Attack Sooner
By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld almost immediately urged President Bush to consider bombing Iraq after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on New York and Washington, says a former senior administration counterterrorism aide.
Richard A. Clarke, the White House counterterrorism coordinator at the time, recounts in a forthcoming book details of a meeting the day after the terrorist attacks during which top officials considered the U.S. response. Even then, he said, they were certain that al-Qaida was to blame and there was no hint of Iraqi involvement.
"Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said. "We all said, 'But no, no, al-Qaida is in Afghanistan."
Clarke, who is expected to testify Tuesday before a federal panel reviewing the attacks, said Rumsfeld complained in the meeting that "there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq."
A spokesman for Rumsfeld said he couldn't comment immediately.
Clarke makes the assertion in a book, "Against All Enemies," that goes on sale Monday. He told CBS News he believes the administration sought to link Iraq with the attacks because of long-standing interest in overthrowing Saddam Hussein; Clarke appears Sunday night on the network's "60 Minutes" program.
"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection" between Iraq and the al-Qaida attacks in the United States, Clarke said in an interview segment that CBS broadcast Friday evening. "There's just no connection. There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al-Qaida."
Clarke also criticized President Bush for promoting the administration's efforts against terrorism, accusing top Bush advisers of turning a blind eye to terrorism during the first months of Bush's presidency.
The Associated Press first reported in June 2002 that Bush's national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks yet terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions.
The last of those two meetings occurred Sept. 4 as the security council put finishing touches on a proposed national security policy review for the president. That review was finished Sept. 10 and was awaiting Bush's approval when the first plane struck the World Trade Center.
"Frankly, I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism," Clarke told CBS. "He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something."
There have been earlier published accounts of the administration's suspicion during the week after the 2001 attacks that Iraq might have been involved, but none by a direct participant in such senior-level meetings and none that suggested there was a push to attack Iraq so soon afterward.
A discussion among President Bush and Cabinet members at Camp David. Md., on Sept. 16, for example, included remarks about whether it was prudent to attack Iraq after the terror attacks.
Bush told reporter Bob Woodward of The Washington Post that he decided not to heed advice on Iraq by some officials who also had served his father's administration during the first Gulf War.
"One of the things I wasn't going to allow to happen is, that we weren't going to let their previous experience in this theater dictate a rational course for a new war," Bush told Woodward for his 2002 book, "Bush at War." He said discussion later that day "was focused only on Afghanistan."
Clarke retired early in 2003 after 30 years in government service. He was among the longest-serving White House staffers, transferred in 1992 from the State Department to deal with threats from terrorism and narcotics.
Clarke previously led the government's secretive Counterterrorism and Security Group, made up of senior officials from the FBI, CIA, Justice Department and armed services, who met several times each week to discuss foreign threats.

[Bold Deceiver]

I have a very simple question for you war beaters. Do you think that the US Govt. should be able to attack any country it wants, for whatever reason it wants? It's a very simple yes or no. I think no.

I have a very simple response for you cowardly, child-like, simplistic, naive pacifists: No.

By way of example, I would not support a war against another country on the basis that its name was spelled funny, or began with a "Z".

On the other hand, Zuruck, you have previously taken the position that no war by the U.S. is justified on any basis whatsoever, unless and until the United States is directly attacked.

In other words, President Zuruck would wait while enemy troops were massed at the border, enemy ships arrayed at the coastline, enemy insurgents internally scattered within, their fingers tensed on the triggers of their discrete WMD --- (edit) and still not authorize the use of force.(edit closed.) Do I misstate your position?

Perhaps you should revisit your conception of "idiot", instead.

BD

[CORD]

Just to add to the attacking without justification issue, Wasn't invading Panama to capture Noriega the same thing? There wasn't as big of a stink about that. And all he was doing was manufacturing/dealing drugs not promoting terrorism against USA.

[De Rigueur]

I don't support terrorists, but what makes the US different from them when you attack a country just cause you don't like the president(whether he is a terrorist or not dones't matter).

You fail to understand what I'm trying to get accross. I'm not saying what is happening is wrong, I'm just being neutral in my point of view.

If it doesn't matter that the leader of a country is a terrorist, why would it matter if the US engaged in terrorist acts in deposing him? The problem with interpreting life through the lens of moral equivalemce is that, in the end, nothing matters -- except being neutral.

It's simply not true that the US attacks countries just because they don't like their leaders. After all, France and Canada are still around.

You're right that we thought we would find lots of wmd's didn't didn't. Instead, we found mass graves with hundreds of thousands of bodies. I'd say it's a wash.

[Bold Deceiver]

But is attacking a country without just cause also an act of terrorism? I mean, it seems that Bush didn't have a reason to attack Iraq cause now we know the WMD reason was a lie.

Merlin,

I see that you share the view that Bush lied about WMD, in order to induce a war against Iraq.

I'm going to offer some facts, that you should feel free to dispute. Once we've agreed on the facts, though, I'm going to ask you to do some critical thinking; the kind of thinking that separates the men from the boys.

I've read some of your posts, I think you're bright, so I'm going to offer you an opportunity to demonstrate your belief that President of my country is a liar.

UNDISPUTED FACTS:

(1) Anfal - The Final Solution.
Anfal was the name of a genocidal campaign by Saddam Hussein against the Kurdish people of Northern Iraq, in 1988. As part of that campaign, the Iraqi government began deploying chemical weapons against its own population. One of the attacks was against villages in the Balisan valley. Middle East Watch calculates that at least 225, and perhaps as many as 400, civilians from the Balisan Valley died as a direct or indirect result of the Iraqi air force's chemical attack on their villages on April 16, 1987. http://www.krg.org/reference/hrw-anfal/anfal2.asp International observers estimate Iraqi forces killed 50,000 to 100,000 people during the 1988 campaign known as "Anfal" which means "the spoils." Further, the Iraqi regime also killed thousands of Iranians with chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq War from 1983 to 1988.

(2) The Halabja Chemical Attacks.
On March 16, 1988, an estimated 5,000 civilians were killed and 10,000 injured when Iraqi air forces bombarded Halabja with mustard and other poison gases. Years after the massacre, the people of Halabja still suffer from very high rates of serious diseases such as cancer, neurological disorders, birth defects and miscarriages. Human Rights Watch has more information on these attacks, here: http://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/IRAQ913.htm#5

(3) Gulf War I.
The U.N. authorized the use of force against Iraq in late 1990, for its "annexation" of Kuwait. Desert Shield and Desert Storm were launched; and Iraq defeated. In April 1991, the UN Security Council enacted Resolution 687 requiring Iraq to declare, destroy, or render harmless its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) arsenal and production infrastructure under UN or International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) supervision. UNSCOM was appointed to conduct inspections and verify Iraq's compliance.

From the end of the war in 1991, until the beginning of the Iraq War, "Baghdad consistently sought to impede and limit UNSCOM's mission in Iraq, by blocking access to numerous facilities throughout the inspection process, often sanitizing sites before the arrival of inspectors and routinely attempting to deny inspectors access to requested sites and individuals." http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm#01

(4)Desert Fox: President William Jefferson Clinton Launched a Massive Attack Against Iraq to Strike WMD

"MISSION: To strike military and security targets in Iraq that contribute to Iraq's ability to produce, store, maintain and deliver weapons of mass destruction. "

"MISSION GOALS: To degrade Saddam Hussein's ability to make and to use weapons of mass destruction. To diminish Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war against his neighbors. To demonstrate to Saddam Hussein the consequences of violating international obligations."

See: Operation Desert Fox. http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/desert_fox/

"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said. The Iraqi dictator has used these weapons against his neighbors and his own people, he said, and "left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." (Emphases added.)

See: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec1998 ... 12171.html

(5) The U.N. Believed Iraq Possessed or Was Developing WMD, and Was Purposefully Evading Detection.

U.N. Resolution 1441.
The U.N., after years of inquiry and debate, made specific findings of fact establishing it perceived a high probability of the presence of WMD, and noted the failure of Iraq to demonstrate it had disposed of WMD:

"Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998, . . . " (Emphases added.)

(6) The Congress Determined Iraq Possessed or Was Developing WMD, Based Upon the Same Information Available to the President

"Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; . . . "

October, 2002
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 002-2.html

(7)The Fact That WMD Has Not Been Discovered Yet, Is Not Conclusive on the Question Whether WMD Existed in the Months Prior to the War
Straight up logic.

There is no question that Hussein had the weapons. Hussein admitted he had the weapons after the first Gulf War. The facts above demonstrate that a high probability that prior to the Iraq war, the weapons either existed and were destroyed; were sold and shipped out; or were hidden. Since intelligence is not only comprised of science, but also art and judgment, we may never know.

That does not lead to the conclusion, however, that the President of the United States lied. There is no evidence to demonstrate this is so. It is, in fact, political mudslinging at its worst. At a time when men and women of the United States are putting their lives on the line, I find the suggestion offensive. It would be another matter if there were supporting facts.

I challenge anyone here to provide evidence the President lied about WMD, in order to induce support for a war against Iraq.

BD

[index_html]

Nice synopsis BD. I've had this deep feeling of irony lately about how conservatives are having to bend over backwards to explain how trying to free a nation from a murderous tyrant is a good thing. Somewhere, I thought I heard that this type of endeavor fits perfectly with liberal ideology.

I drove downtown today and saw a kid with a "No Blood for Oil" poster walking down the street and I wondered to myself if his world view finds nothing meaningful in dethroning a dictator, eliminating his viscious heirs, rendering the torture rooms inactive, stopping the genocidal efforts, unlocking the child prisons, introducing free speech, elected officials, free enterprise, etc. Oil profits and WMDs aside, isn't this the sort of accomplishment that liberals should traditionally embrace?

Conservatives are spending money like socialists and liberals have a problem with vanquishing a tyrant, the Dixie Chicks slam Bush and Johnny Ramone loves Rush Limbaugh. It's an upside down world these days.

[Top Gun]

You beat me index .

Thank you, BD. It's about time people stopped accusing Bush of lying about WMDs and looked at the facts. The entire world thought that Saddam had the weapons. The UN, Germany, France, Russia...all of them. The US was simply enforcing a resolution that the UN had made some time before but was too cowardly to back up with military threats. The fact that we have not found any weapons should be cause for concern, not criticism. Where did they go? Were they destroyed, or did they leave the country? As BD posted, we all know that Saddam both had and used WMDs in the past. Given the chance, I'll bet that he would have again in the future. For that simple reason, plus the liberation of millions of innocent Iraqis, the war was justified. End of argument.

Edit: On that "blood for oil" argument: has the US seen any benefit from Iraq's oil? I haven't seen pump prices go down. In fact, I haven't heard of the US making any real profits from Iraq's oil, or in general. I think it's funny that someone could accuse any US president of invading another country solely for a natural resource. It's just more of the liberal, "Let's bash Bush any way we can" crowd. Hey, I hear France is looking for some new citizens; you guys would fit in well there .

[Bold Deceiver]

The problem with interpreting life through the lens of moral equivalemce is that, in the end, nothing matters -- except being neutral.

Perfect.

BD

[Repo Man]

OK, I have to pop-off also. Execuse the upper-case text. I didn't feel like fixing the cut-and-paste.

ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, WE ARE DETERMINED TO DENY IRAQ THE CAPACITY TO DEVELOP WMD'S 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 WMD 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 WMD'S AGAIN, AS HE HAS TEN TIMES SINCE 1983.
-SANDY BERGER, CLINTON NATIONAL
SECURITY ADVISOR 2/18/98

(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 WMD'S PROGRAM. -LETTER TO PRESIDENT CLINTON, SIGNED BY SENATORS CARL LEVIN, TOM DASCHLE, JOHN KERRY, AND OTHERS OCT. 9, 1998

SADDAM HUSSEIN HAS BEEN ENGAGED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF WMD 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) 12/16/98

HUSSEIN HAS ....CHOSEN TO SPEND HIS MONEY ON BUILDING WMD'S AND PALACES FOR HIS CRONIES.
-MADELINE ALBRIGHT,CLINTON
SEC.OF STATE,11/10/99

THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT....SADDAM HUSSEIN HAS INVIGORATED 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 ILLICIT MISSILE PROGRAMS TO DEVELOP LONGER-RANGE MISSILES THAT WILL THREATEN THE U.S. AND OUR ALLIES.

- LETTER TO PRESIDENT BUSH
SIGNED BY SEN. BOB GRAHAM (D)
AND OTHERS, 12/5/2001

Yeah, tell that to the Kurds...

[CDN_Merlin]

Ok, I've read and understood the posts. I understand better. But I have a question to ask.

In WW2, the US dind't want to get involved because the war didn't concern/involve them. Even though Hitler had commited genocide and was trying to concur the entire European world didn't make the US join. Only when Pearl Harbour was attacked did the US entire WW2.


So if Saddam hasn't attacked the US yet, why does the US attack him now and not just leave him alone like in WW2?

EDIT: I guess my problem is I didn't like thinking the main reason for the war was because of WMD and now there is no proof of them actually existing(really).

[Lothar]

Perhaps because waiting to get involved in WW2 was a mistake?

[De Rigueur]

I don't think it was known in 1941 that Hitler was commiting genocide. Also, Hitler kept signing peace agreements and then breaking them. That deception gave the impression that he was less of a threat. (Hitler is the prime example of the failure of appeasement.) Of course the US supported Britain with the "Lend-Lease" program beginning in 1940, iirc, so there was limited US involvement.

"So if Saddam hasn't attacked the US yet, why does the US attack him now and not just leave him alone like in WW2? "

The reason is known as the Bush doctrine of pre-emption. I think it has been quoted in one of the previous posts.

[Bold Deceiver]

Ok, I've read and understood the posts. I understand better. But I have a question to ask.

In WW2, the US dind't want to get involved because the war didn't concern/involve them. Even though Hitler had commited genocide and was trying to concur the entire European world didn't make the US join. Only when Pearl Harbour was attacked did the US entire WW2.


So if Saddam hasn't attacked the US yet, why does the US attack him now and not just leave him alone like in WW2?

EDIT: I guess my problem is I didn't like thinking the main reason for the war was because of WMD and now there is no proof of them actually existing(really).

Did you know, Merlin, that your own country, to its great honor, voted to enter WWII in 1939, long before the United States? When it did so, Canada had not been attacked in any way, shape or form.

Canada didn't have to enter the war. Europe was across the ocean, thousands of miles away. And the Statute of Westminster, signed in 1931, meant that Canada had political autonomy from Great Britain. Canadians were torn because, like the United States, there was a well-grounded isolationist base. But it sent its men anyway.

The answer, Merlin, lies in the context of the world as we know it now, not then. Technology and terror have met in an horrific confluence to create a shadow that our fathers and mothers never knew.

We were born into the luxury of freedom, so we take it for granted. But now, it's our responsibility to carry the torch, because we live in this time. Our thoughts and words shape the world and the way others see it. That's why we have to choose our words carefully.

The Bush Doctrine is this: "We will not wait for known enemies to strike us again. We will strike them in their camps or caves or wherever they hide, before they hit more of our cities and kill more of our citizens."

My prayer is that we prevail, but its no certainty. This will go on as long as you are alive. Because just as sure as God made little green apples, some jihad bastard is out there trying to figure out how to procure and detonate a nuclear device in the middle of America.

And on the day that happens, no one is safe.

BD

[CDN_Merlin]

I just wish there was a quick wayt o dispose of all the terrorism in this world. It saddens me to great lengths when I sit down and think about it in depth.

I try to understand why they want to do it and just can't come up with a valid reason for mass murder of innocent people. I understand that innocent people die in war but that is the nature of war. Terrorism is done on purpose by cowards, war is the result of defending one's ground.

What I want in the end is more a civilization like they have in the Star Trek world. No money, but everyone has what they need and is happy doing the job they have no matter the "status" of it.

[Will Robinson]

It's unfortunate that such an important and difficult task as rallying the nation, and the world, behind the 'Bush Doctrine' has to be lead by Bush.
I say that only for one reason, because he lacks the slick speaking skills of his predecessor which would come in very handy right now.

It is very fortunate however, that the culmination of events that mandate the implimentation of a 'Bush Doctrine' happened during Bush's watch, because his predecessor avoided such politically risky actions and instead squandered his slick speaking talents on fooling people into thinking he cares about them and that he deserves to be above the law as long as he bites his lower lip, makes puppydog eyes, feels our pain and carrys a bible into a black church service for the news cameras.

I would trade Bush in for Rudy Giulliani or Tony Blair or even an above average Joe like Bold Deciever in a heartbeat, but if there is a god above I thank him for letting Bush be in charge post 9/11!
On the other hand, if we as a nation don't follow through on what Bush started we'll all be wishing Slick Willy had been there to teach us how to hide our head in the sand and live only in the here and now.

[De Rigueur]

I try to understand why they want to do it and just can't come up with a valid reason for mass murder of innocent people.

I study evil at school. One of the things that makes evil really evil is that there just is no explanation for it, so don't feel like you're missing something. During ww2 the Nazis derived no strategic or tactical advantage from diverting resources to run the concentration camps. Adolph Eichman who was tried in Jerusalem was an unremarkable man who discharged his duties with distinction -- but his job was to supply the raw materials (i.e., people) to factories that produced corpses. He did not appear to be twisted or wicked and he even made a respectable appeal to Kant's moral philosophy to justify his actions. So if you can't figure out their motives, you're not alone.

To cope, I remind myself of what Sam said to Frodo, that there's good in the world and it's worth fighting for. Or in loftier language, "Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world."

[Cuda68-2]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... da_nuclear


al-Qaida No. 2: We Have Briefcase Nukes

Lets just hang out and do nothing, I mean really this no threat - YEA RIGHT!!

[Lothar]

I repeat my question based on the thread's original topic:

why censure Bush for something Rumsfeld said?

[index_html]

I can only speculate that moveon.org doesn't see the Bush administration as being comprised of individuals, but rather as a hydra with many heads that is collectively responsible for any statement eminating from it. That's my best guess. I wouldn't spend too much time dwelling on moveon.org's logic, unless shaking your head is a hobby.

[Dedman]

Lets just hang out and do nothing, I mean really this no threat - YEA RIGHT!!

Why are the only options fight a war or do nothing. This thinking is akin to what went on right after 9/11. Either vote for the patriot act or you are a terrorist sympathiser.

There are ALWAYS more than two options.

[Palzon]

In response to Bold Deceiver's post...

I have stated this elsewhere more than once but have yet to receive any response to it from the largely republican constuency of this board:

i am glad that we deposed Hussein. But the fact remains that it appears the current administration either exaggerated, fabricated, or misinterpreted the intelligence it gathered regarding Iraqi WMD.

Let's not forget that the administration was not merely claiming prior to the war that Iraq was seeking to develop WMD, or technoligies tangential to the development of WMD. The administration was claiming that Iraq possessed current stockpiles of weapons-grade WMD, the delivery systems to use them, and technologies tangential to the development of WMD.

Now, is it possible that between the time that intelligence was gathered and the end of the war when the USA gained access to search wherever they pleased, that Iraq managed to dispose of all evidence of such weapons, technology, and delivery systems? Sure it is possible. But to give such an assertion any degree of merit is to shave too closely with Ockham's Razor.

In other words, the fact that evidence of stockpiles, weapons-grade materials, delivery systems, and tangential technologies has not been found lends much credence to the assertion that the current administration either exaggerated, fabricated, or misinterpreted the intelligence it gathered regarding Iraqi WMD. THIS is inescapable logic.

So, if we take the most benevolent view of what has occurred, say that the adminstration misinterpreted the intelligence it had gathered, should we be less concerned about this than if it was a deliberate lie? I think we should be just as concerned. Again, i'm glad we attacked Iraq. I'm glad we deposed Hussein. But i have a healthy distrust of an administration that either lied, exaggerated, or incompetently misinterpreted intelligence, and then urged military action on that basis.

This is not as simple an issue as many conservatives on this board try to make it out to be. Don't forget that the USA was instrumental in supporting Hussein when we saw him as an ally against Iran. To those who point to Hussein's abuse of his own people, don't forget that Bush urged rebellion to the Iraqi people during Gulf I, and failed to support the rebellion after the war ended. Tens of thousands of Iraqis died at Saddam's hands because they rebelled, including Kurds. However much lip service this administration paid to Saddam's killing his own people as being justification for war, the main reason they provided was WMD and the claim that he was an imminent threat.

Did the administration lie? I do not know. I think censure is jumping the gun. But everyone here should be concerned that even if the administration didn't lie, their intelligence was wrong. And their main call to arms, their cassus belli, was the threat of Iraqi WMD.

Just so there is no mistaking my position here. I am not claiming that the administration made no other argument for going to war with Iraq than WMD, only that it was their main argument. I am not claiming that we should not have gone to war. I believe that violations of extant UN resolutions alone were sufficient to justify aggression against Iraq. But this administration pointed to "stockpiles" of weapons and claimed Iraq was an imminent threat. Iraqi WMD was the administrations main justification for war. The fact that this claim has not been borne out indicates that on the this point, the administration was either dishonest or incompetent, and neither is acceptable with so much at stake.

[Bold Deceiver]

[T]he fact remains that it appears the current administration either exaggerated, fabricated, or misinterpreted the intelligence it gathered regarding Iraqi WMD.

Conclusory. The entire post. You need to provide facts, not merely declare that your conclusions are facts.

1) "Exaggerated". You have provided no factual support for this theory. In the face of overwhelming evidence that A) WMD did exist and was generously deployed by Hussein; B) the Congress, the U.N., and a number of other countries concluded that WMD existed, prior to the war, you offer nothing.

Nor have you pointed to a single fact to show that the Bush Administration, as opposed to the the Congress, the United Nations, and France, "exaggerated" the claims of WMD.

What am I missing here? The only one who disagreed was "Bagdad Bob" ("they do not have the Airport, they do not have the Airport") and the Iraqi Ambassador to the U.N. Even the Democrats were on board, when they thought it would be politically beneficial to do so.

2) "Fabricated." You have provided not a scintilla, not a shred of evidence to support this charge. You don't attack any of the factual premises cited above, and you acutally concede: "Did the administration lie? I don't know." You merely present fabrication as a possible alternative. Well, another possible alternative is that your charge of fabrication is politically motivated and spurious. Another possibility is that George Bush is actually the Devil, and Democrats are genetic twits. The possibilities are endless, really. But what I asked for, what I am begging you to provide me with, is a fact. Not your opinion; not your conclusion. A fact.

3) "Misinterpreted". Of your three assertions, this one is the only one with even the weakest degree of plausibility, but only because WMD have not yet been located.

Allowing for the possibility that the U.N., the Bush Administration, the Congress, and France were all wrong about Iraq's possession of WMD just prior to the war, then yes, that could mean misinterpretation of data by the U.N., the Bush Administration, the Congress, and France.

If you allow for the possibility that David Kaye is not entirely correct -- that WMD is squirreled away somewhere; or that in the, what, 15 months leading up to the Iraq War, Hussein decided to offload/destroy/sell/shipout/hide/snort/what-have-you, the WMD we know he did have, well then, you have lots and lots and lots and lots of other possibilities . . .

. . . other than the three you have offered. In short, your inescapable logic just had a jailbreak.

So, if we take the most benevolent view of what has occurred, say that the adminstration misinterpreted the intelligence it had gathered, should we be less concerned about this than if it was a deliberate lie?

What? Can you really be serious? You would rather have a lying President than faulty intelligence analysis? If the administration lied about the intelligence it gathered, had evidence that Hussein had destroyed Iraq's WMD stockpiles, and had evidence that Hussein had destroyed the means to manufacture them; but for some twisted, internal reason just refused to tell anyone about it -- well that's a damn sight more serious than screwing up the intelligence, doncha think?

I would rather err on the side of deposing the invading, vicious, slaughtering tyrant, one who is geographically located smack in the middle of region filled with religious fanatics who despise the west, and one who refuses to obey the terms of his last surrender by not disclosing what he did with the weapons we know he had at the end of the Gulf War.

And just so we understand each other -- in light of Kaye's report, I support finding out how and why our intelligence community was wrong -- if they were wrong. We need the best intelligence available, and the best analysis of that intelligence. This is one of the few points on which we agree.

Don't forget that the USA was instrumental in supporting Hussein when we saw him as an ally against Iran.

And the point of this remark is what, exactly? That the U.S. lost the moral right to invade Iraq? Is there a follow-up here, or is it just a "U.S.A. is Evil" remark?

To those who point to Hussein's abuse of his own people, don't forget that Bush urged rebellion to the Iraqi people during Gulf I, and failed to support the rebellion after the war ended. Tens of thousands of Iraqis died at Saddam's hands because they rebelled, including Kurds.

True. We should never have abandoned the Kurds. We were still nursing the Vietnam hangover then, and looking to the U.N. for instruction on how to conduct our foreign affairs and wars. Never again.

However much lip service this administration paid to Saddam's killing his own people as being justification for war, the main reason they provided was WMD and the claim that he was an imminent threat.

Two words: Desert Fox.

[T]his administration pointed to "stockpiles" of weapons and claimed Iraq was an imminent threat. Iraqi WMD was the administrations main justification for war. The fact that this claim has not been borne out indicates that on the this point, the administration was either dishonest or incompetent, and neither is acceptable with so much at stake.

Your "dishonesty" argument is offered in a factual vacuum. You haven't even provided a basis for weak inference.

Your "incompetence" argument doesn't address the fact that the Bill Clinton ordered a major military operation on the same premise; that Congress reviewed the same evidence and came to the same conclusion as the Administration; and that the U.N. came to the same conclusion; that France came to the same conclusion; etc. etc. etc.

The fact that you seem to think the Iraq war was justified doesn't give you credibility. What it seems to show is partisan, intellectual dishonesty.

Next up.

BD

[Tyranny]

So Paly,....you're basically saying that you're glad that we did away with Hussein.....but....you're mad the US govt. may have exaggerated it's claims about Iraq's WMD capabilities to justify uprooting him in the first place?

I'm sorry, but does anyone else see something wrong with this? Does it really matter THAT much that they were wrong on the small points? So what, they didn't have stockpiles of WMD that we can find, but we know they HAD WMD and were capable of using them and/or had used them in the past.

Isn't that sufficient?

Personally I feel this whole situation was a target of opportunity scenario. We got attacked by Bin Laden, we go into Afghanistan to try and deal with him and then it was like "hrm....you know, Saddam has been a thorn in the US side for years now, it's a good time to take him out as well before he does something to us".

Paranoid? maybe, I don't think Saddam would ever do anything against the US himself but hes just the type of scum bucket that would let his money somehow filter into the pockets of groups like AQ that are crazy enough to do the dirty work without him being directly linked in the process.

The thing I'm the most upset about is the fact that we haven't gotten Bin Laden yet. Since this a-hole is the guy who masterminds the whole operation that leads to crap like 9/11 I'm kind of miffed that we haven't done more to get him.

[Lothar]

well said, Tyr

Allowing for the possibility that the U.N., the Bush Administration, the Congress, and France were all wrong about Iraq's possession of WMD just prior to the war, then yes, that could mean misinterpretation of data by the U.N., the Bush Administration, the Congress, and France.

Yep, exactly. Everyone thought Saddam had WMD, and Saddam wanted everyone to think that, up until about 6 months before the war. Everyone was a WMD-believer.

Once "WMD" became the overhyped part of the justification for war (mostly overhyped in the media -- listen to the full speeches early on, and notice how little is said about WMD), all of a sudden people who opposed Bush for other reasons became WMD-atheists. All of a sudden, the people who'd been complaining that Saddam wouldn't cooperate realized that they stood to gain politically by changing their positions, so they did.

Up until it became politically beneficial not to, everyone in every intelligence community in the world thought Saddam had WMD -- or, at the very least, they thought there was a reasonable chance Saddam was attempting to produce WMD. This is a fact -- and since we're concerned with facts, this is the place to start. The world's intelligence community may have made a mistake -- and to lay the blame for this squarely with the Bush administration... well, that shows blind partisanship. The Bush administration may have misinterpreted the data, which puts them in fairly good company with the Clinton administration, Congress, most of Europe's governments, etc. Or, there may have actually been WMD and they were destroyed or hidden before the war. Either way, that's not too bad for the Bush administration.

Now, let's look at a supporting quote:

Iraq had been shown to have biological and chemical weapons before, "and there was no record of either destruction or production; there was this nagging question: Do they still have them?" ElBaradei [director of the IAEA] said.

So, Iraq had biological and chemical weapons, and it was unsure whether or not they still had them. So, let's look at our second fact: UN resolutions 1441 and 687 did not allow for there to be such a nagging question. Those resolutions both stated that Iraq had to give a complete account of all of its WMD and the destruction thereof.

So, the Bush administration acted on what might have been faulty intelligence (we still don't know -- there may still be WMD in Iraq.) The possibly-faulty intelligence they acted on was intelligence the entire intel community supported up until they decided to go anti-Bush. And even if the intelligence was faulty, it still remains that the UN's resolutions regarding the disarmament of Iraq placed the burden of proof on Iraq, not on the US.

[index_html]

Facts, shmacts. This thread needs a protester. Here's a winner:

http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/i ... ewyork.jpg

Good post Lothar. I think it's also worth noting that Iraq was trying to shoot down U.S. and British planes daily in the no-fly zones while we were protecting the Kurds in the north and Shi'ites in the south. The U.N. in all its wisdom, of course, didn't think that this overt aggression was a violation of any kind. Firing AAA must have taken a back seat to firing off checks to Swiss banks accounts.