Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War  
User currently offlineBlatantEcho From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1920 posts, RR: 1
Posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1967 times:

The NY Times is reporting today that members of congress are calling for at least an independent investigation into Gulf War 2.0

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/28/politics/28PREX.html?pagewanted=1&hp
--------

Now, is this political poo throwing, or serious stuff? I'm an American before I'm a democrat or republican or whatever, so leave your political baggage at the door, I don't want to hear it, nor does anyone else.

Since Dr. Kay's final report the conclusion was that there effectively haven't been WMDs in Iraq for years, nor could there have been. Furthermore, Dr. Kay seemed surprised how basic intelligence didn't produce these obivous findings.

--------
500+ of our finest dead because of bad info? Well, the war is close to over, we can't change that. Ultimately the president gives the go ahead, but this is a pretty big fuck up, does someone need to hang for this or what?

George


They're not handing trophies out today
48 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1941 times:

Hang Saddam.



.
Jeff


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21495 posts, RR: 53
Reply 2, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1939 times:

JeffM: Hang Saddam.

...before he could talk!


User currently offlineDc10guy From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 2685 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1930 times:

Well the UN inspectors didn't find anything ... DUBYA SHOULD BE THE ONE THAT HANGS....


Next time try the old "dirty Sanchez" She'll love it !!!
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1932 times:

It depends if it would be a serious investigation, or a witch-hunt mixed with election-year politiking.

Clearly, the assumptions that the U.S. and UK governments had going in were wrong, or at least exaggurated. There should be an investigation into how this happened and why. However I think that this should not be made into a media circus. I would argue that even the results of the investigation should not be anounced in press conferences, but made low key. The idea is to find out how the system malfunctioned and address it - not to use the information for partisan politics.

Charles


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21495 posts, RR: 53
Reply 5, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1926 times:

God forbid that politicians would actually be held accountable for any wrongdoing!

User currently offlineIndianguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1917 times:

There should be an independent ad thorough investigation into the events leading to the invasion and the illegal occupation of Iraq. Who were the people making the plans, and what was the time frame in which these decisions were made and finalised, and what were the intelligence inputs at the time and so on.

The links between Haliburton and these men in the Administration must also be probed. Did any money change hands? If not what was the relationship?

It is important that the real facts come out.

-Roy


User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1915 times:

Holding people accountable is one thing; manipulating an investigation for political gain is another. This is already a valid concern, as shown by a Democratic senatorial strategy memo discovered last fall. It recommended delaying an investigation in order to extract maximum political leverage in an election year (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031105-115322-8236r.htm). Neither party's motives are exactly pure.

Perhaps the wisest solution would be an independent, nonpartisan investigatory panel, like the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, with broad powers to subpoena documents and witnesses. Taking the investigation out of Congress' direct control makes it much less likely that the process and its findings will be used for partisan mud-slinging in either direction. We need to find out why our intelligence, under Clinton as well as Bush, and that of most other nations was flawed, not start another round of political bickering.

--B2707SST



Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlineDragon-wings From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 3990 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1912 times:

You all should read this. It's a interview Tom Brokaw did with former chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq David Kay.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4066462/

In my opinion there are some very interesting (damaging) points David Kay makes in the interview.




Don't give up don't ever give up - Jim Valvano
User currently offlineBlatantEcho From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1920 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1904 times:

Cfalk- I agree with you.

It is very hard to determine what is political grandstanding, and what remarks carry credible substance, especially when we talk about a political firestorm that is Iraq Invasion and Occupation.

George



They're not handing trophies out today
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 10, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1902 times:

Yeah lets take some of the quotes from Kay's interview. It should be noted that Kay was an "weapons expert" for NBC before he went to Iraq this time.


Tom Brokaw: You found evidence of programs that were in place but no weapons.

DK: There were a lot of small activities. Now, in the missile field it’s quite different. There were actually large, purposeful programs going on in that area.


TB: Intelligence report says ... "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with range in excess of U.N. restrictions. If left unchecked it probably will have a nuclear weapon within this decade."

DK: Well, I think it’s got elements that we have certainly seen are true. The area that it’s probably more seriously wrong in is in the nuclear area.

TB: The president described Iraq as a gathering threat — a gathering danger. Was that an accurate description?

DK: I think that’s a very accurate description.

TB: But an imminent threat to the United States?

DK: Tom, an imminent threat is a political judgment. It’s not a technical judgment. I think Baghdad was actually becoming more dangerous in the last two years than even we realized. Saddam was not controlling the society any longer. In the marketplace of terrorism and of WMD, Iraq well could have been that supplier if the war had not intervened.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineDragon-wings From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 3990 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1897 times:

L-188 in the first quote you left out some things. Here is the whole exchange.

Tom Brokaw: You found evidence of programs that were in place but no weapons.

DK: There were a lot of small activities. Now, in the missile field it’s quite different. There were actually large, purposeful programs going on in that area. But in chemical, biological and nuke, it was rudimentary.

Here is the exchange I thought would be damaging

TB: David, as you know the vice president of the United States and Secretary of State Powell say, “We still don’t know the end result. We could still find these weapons.”

DK: Well, Tom, let me explain how we came — how I came to a different conclusion. If there weren’t stockpiles of weapons, there must have been a production process which required plants, required people and would have produced documentation. But we have seen nothing that would indicate large-scale production.




Don't give up don't ever give up - Jim Valvano
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 12, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1897 times:

Except that is not GW being quoted by Tommy.


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 22
Reply 13, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1867 times:

Everyone should read all of what Kay has been saying and not just the DNC taking points from CNN and the NYTimes.

Some of this was already said by L-188 but it is worth repeating.

- Saddam had active WMD programs. He was diverting large sums of money into these programs but the scientists involved were not producing the materials Saddam wanted. Some of the scientists were diverting money from the programs and giving Saddam just enough to convince him and his cronies that they possessed plenty of chemical and biological weapons.

- Saddam had an active biological/chemical program that had already produced a weaponized version of the poison Ricin. The program was active at the start of the war.

- Saddam’s missile program was much father along than anyone knew. They possessed and were secretly producing missiles that violated multiple U.N. resolutions.

- Terrorist groups were moving freely throughout Iraq and had access to Iraqi weapon arsenals and sooner or later would have acquired WMD’s from someone in Iraq. Some of these terrorists groups (Ansar al-Islam being the largest) have ties to Al-Qaeda.

- Saddam sent many convoys to Syria in the months before the war. It is not known what was in these them but Kay believes that a large amount of WMD related materials (and possibly WMD themselves) were in these Syrian bound convoys.

- Saddam had an active nuclear program and the intention to acquire nuclear weapons.

- It was Saddam’s responsibility to account for all his WMD. Even Hans Blix said on more than one occasion that Saddam had never accounted for thousands of tons of chemical and biological weapons as required by multiple U.N. resolutions.

- Saddam continued to hide his programs from the world even when the U.N. inspectors returned in the months before the war.

- Kay says if anyone is at fault it is the intelligence community, not the leadership of the countries who chose to act based on what was at hand. It was missed by the intelligence agencies of dozens of countries including France, Germany, Russia, Britain, United States, China, and others as well as the U.N. If anyone owes anyone else an apology, it is the intelligence community and not the leaders of the countries.

- The White House never asked for U.S. intelligence to dress up any information or pressured the CIA/DIA/NSA/etc for pro-war materials.

- While Kay says he thinks there is a good chance WMD’s won’t be found, he said it is still possible given how much information is still to be analyzed and how much searching still needs to be done.

Also, here is an interview Kay gave on the Today Show with Matt Lauer.

Began Lauer: "Some people have relied on your earlier statement to say that the US misled the American people into war on the basis of a claim that Saddam had WMDs. Do you think the US misled the American people?"

Kay: "It wasn't only the US who came to that conclusion. The French, Germans, and UN all thought Saddam had WMDs."

Lauer: "If you didn't find WMDs, does that mean they never existed, or could they have been moved prior to war?"

Kay: "We looked at that possiblity but we didn't find evidence that there were large stockpiles prior to the war."

Lauer than ran a clip from Pres. Bush's State of the Union Address from one year ago, in which he stated that Saddam had been employing huge resources to develop WMDs and had built up a large stockpile.

Lauer: "Was that inaccurate?"

Kay: "It was inaccurate in terms of the reality we found on the ground now, but it was accurate in terms of the intelligence at the time.

"It was also accurate in the sense that Saddam did spend large sums of money trying to get WMDs but he simply didn't get what he paid for.

"There was lots of corruption in the Iraq WMD development program."

Lauer: "So scientists lied to Saddam, they told him they could develop WMDs, took huge sums of money and didn't deliver?"

Kay: "Right. There was widespread corruption, lots of money wasted. People were concerned about the money, not about working."

Lauer: "But the intent to develop WMDs was there?"

Kay: "Absolutely, Saddam surely wanted to get WMDs and spent a lot of money trying to do so."

Lauer then showed a clip from Colin Powell at the UN saying Saddam had at least 500 tons of WMDs. Again, Kay explained that Powell was not being intentionally misleading and that his statement was based on the best intelligence available at the time.

Added Kay, responding to what some of the Dems are alleging: "To say there must have been pressure from the White House on the intelligence community is wrong. We've also been wrong about Iran and Libya. We clearly need better intelligence."

Lauer then quoted from Kay's earlier interview with Tom Brokaw in which Kay had said that "if anyone was abused (by faulty intelligence) it was the President of the US rather than the other way around."

Kay confirmed the accuracy of that remark.

Lauer: "Is it true that in 2000 and 2001 Saddam was pushing his nuclear progarm?"

Kay: "Yes, he was pushing hard for nuclear and long range missiles. Look, it's clear the man had the intent. He simply wasn't successful."

"He clearly lied to UN and was in material brach."

In a key moment in the interview, Lauer asked: "Based on everything you now know, was it prudent to go to war against Saddam?"

Kay: "It was absolutely prudent to go to war. The system was collapsing, Iraq was a country with desire to develop WMDs, and it was attracting terrorists like flies to honey."

Lauer: "Are your earlier comments being exploited for political reasons?"

Kay: "Inevitably yes, but what we have is a national security issue that shouldn't be exploited as a political issue."

Lauer: "Should we continue to search for WMDs as VP Cheney has suggested?

Kay: "Absolutely."



"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21495 posts, RR: 53
Reply 14, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1861 times:

The Bush administration spent considerable efforts and almost all of its international credibility on the attempt to prove that the UN was ineffective and naive.

What´s now becoming more and more evident by the hour seems to be that the UN inspectors´ assessment was pretty accurate (no, they never said Saddam was "harmless" or "well-intentioned"!) and their work was very effective, while the Bush administration was almost laughably mis-informed (at least partially by choice) and naive concerning the aftermath of the invasion.

It is somewhat difficult to justify claims to leadership based on such a track record.


User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13699 posts, RR: 61
Reply 15, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1863 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I watched the interview as well, and it's clear that David Kay agrees with the Administration on the war.

So....any liberals or others who think the President lied care to respond to this post from B757300?

(insert sound of crickets chirping)

Anyone?

(insert sound of crickets chirping)

 Big thumbs up



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineStartvalve From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1846 times:

Deja Vu, I swear we had this discussion weeks ago over much the same topic. It just lacked an article from the PinkoCommie Times to back it up.

User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21495 posts, RR: 53
Reply 17, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1838 times:

EA CO AS: I watched the interview as well, and it's clear that David Kay agrees with the Administration on the war.

Not exactly. Despite his open admission that he was and still is an avid (and donating) supporter of the republican party he still had the integrity to concede that the factual basis for the war just wasn´t there.

He gets a lot more diffuse when it´s about the political aspects. On the one hand he claims he won´t get into a political assessment of the pre-war situation, on the other he does just that by speculating about what Saddam may or may not have intended.


When you´re looking for a full-scale exoneration of the Bush administration´s Iraq invasion, you´d need proof of the immediate threat to the USA (and to Britain, in the case of the Blair government) which was the primary selling point of this war.

And exactly this point is factually obliterated by Kay´s testimony, his attempts at political damage control notwithstanding.


There´s this strange fantasy image of the UN and the rest of the world believing Saddam to be a nice uncle to cuddle with. Alas, in reality the UN inspectors and basically everyone around the planet knew very well he was a murderous dictator. Many even knew that already when he was still an american pet during the Reagan era!

The only possible justification for shoving aside the UN and spitting the world in the face would have been an immediate danger to the USA (and Britain). In that case, the UN charta even grants you every right to go it alone!

But since we now know with certainty that the invaders were all wrong about this particular point and the UN inspectors had a realistic view of Iraq and did an excellent job in suppressing WMD programs, it is equally clear that the problem would have called for international cooperation to reign in Saddam and make Iraq more free than it was under Saddam and more stable than it - sadly - is now.


What you´d need is just not there. Sorry to burst your bubble.

I just wish it hadn´t taken thousands of killed iraqis and hundreds of killed americans, britons and others to make you believe the facts that everybody else has seen right from the beginning. You have been told!


User currently offlineAirplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day ago) and read 1832 times:

Well, the war is close to over.....

Say what now?


User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13699 posts, RR: 61
Reply 19, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day ago) and read 1824 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

you´d need proof of the immediate threat to the USA (and to Britain, in the case of the Blair government) which was the primary selling point of this war.

Ok, once again, since you clearly weren't paying attention:

In a key moment in the interview, Lauer asked: "Based on everything you now know, was it prudent to go to war against Saddam?"

Kay: "It was absolutely prudent to go to war. The system was collapsing, Iraq was a country with desire to develop WMDs, and it was attracting terrorists like flies to honey."


Certainly sounds like an immediate threat if you ask me! But then again, the problem is with your choice of words; what exactly constitutes an "immediate threat" anyway?

Is it when someone says they want to kill you? Or is it when they actually grab the gun? Or when they've grabbed it AND loaded it? Or is it only when they level it at you and start to exert pressure on the trigger?

What you or I perceive as an immediate threat may be wildly different than what the guy down the street or your barber or your grocer or even the President of the United States may consider an "immediate threat."

I'll trust the judgment of the President on this one, thanks.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16892 posts, RR: 51
Reply 20, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day ago) and read 1820 times:

"JeffM: Hang Saddam.

...before he could talk!"

Klaus if they were really afraid of what Saddam might say the US would have never let him out of that hole alive, instead they dragged him out and let Iraqi Governing Council members talk to him at the airport.

If someone were really trying to prevent Saddam from talking, dragging out of that hole alive and putting him on trial would have been the last thing they would have done.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21495 posts, RR: 53
Reply 21, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day ago) and read 1810 times:

EA CO AS: Ok, once again, since you clearly weren't paying attention:

That´s it for you??? Oh my; You poor, frightened bunny! Big grin
They´ve really taken your balls away with their incessant scaremongering, haven´t they?  Insane


Iraq was in no way ready or close to deploying weapons that would have been able to threaten the USA. Not even the US-provided Anthrax would have been fit for that. That´s basically what Kay reports when he´s talking about facts and not about his support for his own republican president.

If that would have been the real reason, several other countries would have been far, far more urgent - North Korea, for instance. They have a murderous and ruthless dictator and they even claim themselves that they have WMDs! Which may be exaggerated, but it seems enough to deter an US invasion, for some peculiar reason...

It is clearly evident that someone is taking you for a ride; And it´s not those evil europeans, for a change.  Wink/being sarcastic


Just think about it!


User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 22
Reply 22, posted (10 years 10 months 23 hours ago) and read 1804 times:

If anyone is going to be afraid of what Saddam has to say, it will be the French, Germans, and Russians. Bits and pieces are starting to come out that companies in these countries and their respective governments were doing business with Iraq in violation of the sanctions.

- Weapons of mass destruction were not the primary reason for removing Saddam. He was an admitted sponsor of terrorists and was a persistent, destabilizing force in the Middle East.

- Removing Saddam not only prevents him from every providing support to terrorists that we're still at war with but it provides a chance to have radical change in the Middle East and maybe move the people out of the 12th century and into the modern, free world.

- Since the fall of Saddam, Iran has agreed to inspections of its nuclear program where before it was stonewalling. Libya has agreed to give up its WMD programs and to turn over all weapons and materials to the U.S., U.K., and U.N.

Oh, and if Bush lied, so did these people.

"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for." -Bill Clinton on Larry King Live July, 2003

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 mandated 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." -Sen. 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

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

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

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." - Patty (Osama Mama) Murray, October 9, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." - John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002



"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21495 posts, RR: 53
Reply 23, posted (10 years 10 months 22 hours ago) and read 1790 times:

B757300, what you need is not a better cut-and-paste, what you need is more attention to what´s going on.  Wink/being sarcastic

Practically nobody claimed that Saddam was anything but a cruel dictator. The fundamental question regarding the Bush War is if the immediate urgency was justified. And of those arguments of the Bush administration where they claimed they "knew better" than the rest of the world not a single one of them has turned out to be true! That is a stunningly bad record!

The uncontested ruthlessness of the Saddam / Baath regime with all its well-known main and side effects would have been an excellent basis for an international cooperation to pursue the (obviously effective!) inspections to the end and then find a unanimous way to increase the pressure on the regime to relinquish control over their population. A prime chance being bombed to hell for delusions of world domination.

The result? Everybody now knows:

a) The Bush administration was basically wrong about everything ("Can they get anything right?").

b) The US military is visibly stretched to its limits - and its limits are far narrower than the world domination strategists would have anyone believe. Especially as the world has turned out to be rather cool to the idea of being dominated. Surprise, surprise!  Insane

c) Instead of a broad base in alliances and consensual cooperation, this administration has basically turned the entire planet against the USA, unnecessarily damaging the bonds to many of their formerly closest allies. "We don´t need you!" may sound great for a short petulant moment, but it gets old real fast. Some of the damage is strategic and unrecoverable.


B757300: If anyone is going to be afraid of what Saddam has to say, it will be the French, Germans, and Russians. Bits and pieces are starting to come out that companies in these countries and their respective governments were doing business with Iraq in violation of the sanctions.

I can only say: Bring it on!

I´ve stood behind every single occasion where an iraqi attempt at purchasing restricted material had been uncovered and - where evident - any domestic collusion led to indictment and convictions. Contrary to the USA, european participants in human rights violations can also be prosecuted by the international court. But then, we´re just lowly europeans who will have to abide by the law...

Let´s just watch the proceedings; I´m especially interested in the undoubtedly following inquiry into US efforts to hush up the gassing of the kurds, even trying to blame it on Iran. That will be interesting.


B757300: Weapons of mass destruction were not the primary reason for removing Saddam.

Oh yes, they were! Until they failed to be found, that is.


B757300: Removing Saddam not only prevents him from every providing support to terrorists that we're still at war

Rubbish! The only known terrorist support by Saddam were the palestinian insurgents. And I´m not aware of any US soldiers participating in the israeli efforts to crush the intifadah.

It took the US invasion to turn Iraq into a magnet for terrorists and suicide bombers, while the withdrawal from Afghanistan has basically given the real terrorists (and the drug lords) free reign again. Quite close to the nuclear weapons of the not-too-stable regime of dictator Musharraf in Pakistan, by the way. Great job, all in all!


B757300: with but it provides a chance to have radical change in the Middle East and maybe move the people out of the 12th century and into the modern, free world.

You mean the "modern world" where the leader of a militarily strong country can have other countries attacked at will, no matter the outcry across the planet? Wow, a dream come true! Or was it a nightmare?


B757300: Since the fall of Saddam, Iran has agreed to inspections of its nuclear program where before it was stonewalling. Libya has agreed to give up its WMD programs and to turn over all weapons and materials to the U.S., U.K., and U.N.

As a result of the diplomatic efforts of several european countries. Bullying doesn´t seem to get you very far, if I´m looking at Iraq today.


B757300: Oh, and if Bush lied, so did these people.

Bush presented "evidence" he knew was false in his state of the union address. I guess a few hundred killed americans would have preferred a president who stuck to lying about a completely irrelevant sexual act!

Uncovering the identity of a secret operative out of spite for uncovering the lie could amount to treason in almost any nation´s book. But for some reason, you don´t seem to worry at all about it.


All in all, you still fail to impress me much.


User currently offlineBlatantEcho From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1920 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (10 years 10 months 21 hours ago) and read 1786 times:

front page of NYtimes website is just today:

"Ex-Inspector Calls for Inquiry on Prewar Intelligence"

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/28/international/middleeast/28CND-WEAP.html?hp

I have only one question:
Who's responsible if the fuck ups are as bad as they seem?

George



They're not handing trophies out today
25 L-188 : Well BlatentEcho, we can start with Jimmy Carter and his reductions to the US intellegence establishment in the 1970's. There has been no replacements
26 Klaus : Intelligence agencies all over the world are far lower funded than the CIA, NSA et cetera and their governments overwhelmingly opposed the war. So it
27 Dc10guy : What should be investigated is why are Americans & Iraqis still dying there ??? Bush has no exit stratagy no direction. (except control of Iraqs oil)
28 BlatantEcho : Dc10guy- as much as I may agree with you, that isn't the issue here. The question boils down too, who is responsible for getting us IN TO this, on suc
29 Post contains images Alpha 1 : For once, I agree with the thrust of what Roy was saying. The planets must have a strange alignment this night. Holding people accountable is one thin
30 JeffM : People do have the right to know what is going on. They just don't make the rules as to WHEN they get to find out. If someone is to blame when it has
31 FDXmech : >>>Intelligence agencies all over the world are far lower funded than the CIA, NSA et cetera and their governments overwhelmingly opposed the war. So
32 FDXmech : I forgot to add on my last post a quote by David Kay “We were almost all wrong,” said the inspector, David Kay, noting that intelligence services
33 B2707SST : That was manipulation for political gain on the part of The Administration, was it not? Um, not according to the Kay report, if you bother to read it.
34 Alpha 1 : I see.... the investigation shouldn't try to find out what's wrong with our intel services and how to fix them, it should be an opportunity for the an
35 Klaus : FDXmech: So to me, your statement is trying to convey that opposition governments were opposed due to more accurate intel. Clearly that's not the case
36 Klaus : In a sense, the Bush administration´s blunder provides the possibly unique opportunity to verify the work of the UN inspectors very precisely (assumi
37 BN747 : If you recall the inspectors were rushed out of Baghdad by the US. We said enough already! We said Saddam was stalling and hiding and BS'ing. Kay back
38 Post contains links JeffM : Here is a link for you Klaus and company... date: 1996 Bill Clinton President.... Seems the info was no good back then as well http://www.chinfo.navy.
39 BN747 : uhh Jeff, that letter encompasses non-compliance of UN resolutions for UNSCOM impediments, (mentions the tanker blast in Saudi Arabia -- but doesn't s
40 Cfalk : This pales in comparison with what North Korea has done and is doing. It oppresses and starves it's people, kidnaps and assassinates South Koreans , a
41 Commander_Rabb : Ask yourself this question. Who or what duped two of the most respected intelligence communities, that of the United States and Great Britain? Hard to
42 Cfalk : Ask yourself this question. Who or what duped two of the most respected intelligence communities, that of the United States and Great Britain? Hard to
43 BN747 : I suggest our military be used to stop real threats. The dead US and UK soldiers involved in this facade deserved better than this...much better. As f
44 Cfalk : As for North Korea, I'd suggest parking the 7th Fleet off the Korean peninsula the next time they launch a test missile across Japan into the Pacific
45 Santosdumont : B757300 wrote: Weapons of mass destruction were not the primary reason for removing Saddam. He was an admitted sponsor of terrorists and was a persist
46 Alpha 1 : Make up your mind. A wise man once said that you don't pull your gun unless you are ready to use it. Are you suggesting that the U.S. attack NK if the
47 BN747 : Make up your mind. A wise man once said that you don't pull your gun unless you are ready to use it. Are you suggesting that the U.S. attack NK if the
48 JeffM : How in the world can you violate a tradition? LOL Alpha...that is a stretch even for you? Can you go to jail for violating a tradition? Or... can I ge
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Man Jailed For Plot To Kill Iraq War Hero posted Fri Jan 27 2006 02:20:22 by Jetjack74
Iraq War Veteran To Run For Congress posted Tue Dec 20 2005 03:39:12 by Tbar220
Bush Gives New Reason For Iraq War posted Wed Aug 31 2005 21:18:39 by Clickhappy
Deadliest Day For U.S. In Iraq War posted Wed Jan 26 2005 16:47:10 by Rsmith6621a
Where Are The Calls For Recounts? posted Thu Nov 9 2006 22:06:56 by RJdxer
Military Times Calls For Rumsfeld's Resignation posted Sat Nov 4 2006 02:21:01 by Rsmith6621a
Iraq War Going South Fast. posted Wed Nov 1 2006 17:04:02 by ArtieFufkin
Iraq War Milestone posted Tue Oct 24 2006 15:27:37 by UALPHLCS
Requisite Age For Induction Into The Old Gits Club posted Thu Aug 3 2006 09:04:03 by IAH777
Iraq War Veterans Take On GOP posted Thu Jul 13 2006 08:27:58 by ArtieFufkin