Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
I guess I just have more faith in the intelligence of the other 100 million or so Americans who support this war. I don't believe they feel themselves decepted; I think they saw 9/11 and realized fully from then on the nature of the enemy we're dealing with, and agree with current US policy that the only way to prevent more 9/11s is measured, decisive pre-emption.
Iraq was a time-bomb waiting to go off. The mad dog needed to be put to sleep. Scratch one country off the list of potential terrorist allies willing to sell them WMD to light up an infidel Western city or three. The entire middle east and western hemisphere should be thankful Hussein is gone.
Indeed, keep the American people protected and far from the fighting, while at the same time pacify a hostile anti-western terrorist arms depot.
|
You made my argument for me. Iraq did not attack the U.S. "The fighting" did
not have to happen. Our president and his neocons caused an unnecessary
war. None of the reasons for launching the attack on Iraq were valid. Bush
knew this in advance. You demonstrate that you cannot accept this. You have no facts to back your statement that <i>"Iraq was a time-bomb waiting to go off".</i> Your president has, however, made your statement a true
prediction for the future. We are fighting Iraqis in Iraq, who Bush elected,
unnecessarily to fight!
Quote:
Iraq <a href="http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/CIA/CIA-2-23-01.htm">CIA Director Tenent's Feb., 2001 Testimony to Congress</a>
Since Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, Baghdad has refused to allow United Nations' inspectors into Iraq as required by Security Council Resolution 687. In spite of ongoing UN efforts to establish a follow-on inspection regime comprising the UN Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the IAEA's Iraq Action Team, no UN inspections occurred during this reporting period. Moreover, the automated video monitoring system installed by the UN at known and suspect WMD facilities in Iraq is no longer operating. Having lost this on-the-ground access, it is more difficult for the UN or the US to accurately assess the current state of Iraq's WMD programs.
We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its WMD programs, although given its past behavior, this type of activity must be regarded as likely. We assess that since the suspension of UN inspections in December of 1998, Baghdad has had the capability to reinitiate both its CW and BW programs within a few weeks to months. Without an inspection monitoring program, however, it is more difficult to determine if Iraq has done so.
|
Quote:
<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml">Feb. 4, 2004 The Man Who Knew</a>
Powell said that when he made the case for war before the United Nations one year ago, he used evidence that reflected the best judgments of the intelligence agencies.
But long before the war started, there was plenty of doubt among intelligence analysts about Saddam's weapons.
One analyst, Greg Thielmann, told Correspondent Scott Pelley last October that key evidence cited by the administration was misrepresented to the public.
Thielmann should know. He had been in charge of analyzing the Iraqi weapons threat for Powell's own intelligence bureau.......
"The main problem was that the senior administration officials have what I call faith-based intelligence. They knew what they wanted the intelligence to show."
Greg Thielmann
|
Bush and his administration knew the truth but later misled and distorted the actual threat Saddam posed to the rest of the
world are press remarks from Colin Powell on Feb. 24:
Quote:
2001:<i>"QUESTION:</B> The Egyptian press editorial commentary that we have seen here has been bitterly aggressive in denouncing the U.S. role and not welcoming you. I am wondering whether you believe you accomplished anything during your meetings to assuage concerns about the air strikes against Iraq and the continuing sanctions?</P><B>
<P>SECRETARY POWELL:</B> I received a very warm welcome from the leaders and I know there is some unhappiness as expressed in the Egyptian press. I understand that, but at the same time, with respect to the no-fly zones and the air strikes that we from time to time must conduct to defend our pilots, I just want to remind everybody that the purpose of those no-fly zones and the purpose of those occasional strikes to protect our pilots, is not to pursue an aggressive stance toward Iraq, but to defend the people that the no-fly zones are put in to defend. The people in the southern part of Iraq and the people in the northern part of Iraq, and these zones have a purpose, and their purpose is to protect people -- protect Arabs -- not to affect anything else in the region. And we have to defend ourselves.</P>
<P>We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. <b>He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.</b> So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue."</P>
</i><b>Please take note that the above quote comes from a page on the
U.S. State Departments own website. <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm">http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm</a>
|
Next, we offer a quote from National Security Advisor, Dr. Rice, date July 29, '01:
Quote:
<i>
"(Larry) KING: Still a menace, still a problem. But the administration failed, principally because of objections from Russia and China, to get the new sanctions policy through the United Nations Security Council. Now what? Do we do this for another 10 years?
(Dr. Condoleeza) RICE: Well, in fact, John, we have made progress on the sanctions. We, in fact, had four of the five, of the permanent five, ready to go along with smart sanctions.
We'll work with the Russians. I'm sure that we'll come to some resolution there, because it is important to restructure these sanctions to something that work.
But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country.<b> We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.</b>
This has been a successful period, but obviously we would like to increase pressure on him, and we're going to go about doing that."</i><p>
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0107/29/le.00.html">http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0107/29/le.00.html</a>
|
Iraq was no "time bomb"......and now it is ! If the "new justification" that
Bush spews as the reason for this war is true, that Saddam could spread
knowledge of how to make WMD's to terrorists, why is the following happening?:
Quote:
<a href="http://www.wtnh.com/global/story.asp?s=2378632&ClientType=Print">Iraq-Arms Makers for Hire</a>
U.S. bid to rein in Iraq weapons scientists slows to crawl
(AP. Oct. 2, 2004 4:25 PM) _ The dangers of Baghdad and a shortage of cash have set back the U.S. effort to put Iraqi weapons scientists to work rebuilding their country and keep them off the global job market for makers of doomsday arms.
To steer them to civilian projects and training, the State Department had planned a dozen workshops and seminars for hundreds of idled specialists from Iraq's old nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs, beginning in the first half of 2004.
It also envisioned an early project, a desalination plant, as a model for other ventures employing scientists, engineers and technicians who once built weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear physicists might work in radiotherapy, for example, and chemists at environmental monitoring stations.
But the department got no new funds for the program, and none of these plans has gotten off the ground, nine months after U.S. officials said they would "jump-start" the initiative to discourage weapons experts from emigrating and offering their services to the highest bidder.
Such nearby countries as Syria, Iran and Egypt are believed to have programs in unconventional weapons that might benefit from Iraqi expertise.
This is an "imminent danger," said one of the Iraqi experts, Mahdi Obeidi.
"I hear there are some cases where scientists have left Iraq. There's a concern of proliferation, and this should be controlled," said Obeidi, an engineer and key figure in Iraq's effort to build nuclear bombs in the 1980s.
Washington arms control specialist Rose Gottemoeller agreed.
"If they're in despair because they cannot get jobs, because the entire country is in chaos, they may be driven by necessity to find work elsewhere. That could include WMD work for other countries," said Gottemoeller, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
The State Department says the kidnappings, car bombings and general violence wracking much of Iraq are a major obstacle to the joint U.S.-Iraqi activities needed to build momentum in the "redirection" program, as it's called.
In fact, the program's on-the-ground manager arrived in Baghdad only three weeks ago.
Prospects for the jobs-for-scientists program had dimmed when the Bush administration, facing a projected $521 billion budget deficit this year, "flat-lined" spending in many areas. Its request to Congress calls for the same $50 million for this purpose in fiscal year 2005 as allocated in 2004, when all of it was spent on a continuing, 12-year-old program in the former Soviet Union to employ ex-weapons builders. No new money is specified for Iraq.
The coming year "is going to be a very challenging year for all programs," said Anne Harrington, deputy director of the State Department's nonproliferation office.
Discussions a year ago suggested $16 million or more in first-year costs for Iraq projects, but so far in 2004 Harrington's office has scraped up only $2 million from a State Department contingency fund.
Iraq's interim government has a "nonproliferation fund" of $37.5 million, but "it's unclear at this point how this would be used," said Raphael Della Ratta, who tracks nonproliferation programs for the Russian-American Nuclear Security Advisory Council, a private Washington group.
Della Ratta said it's also unclear just which Iraqis should be "engaged with."
His council estimates Iraq has between 2,000 and 4,000 "WMD scientists." The State Department hopes to focus on 500 key physicists, chemists, biologists and others. Although not yet working on projects, 50 of those are receiving U.S. retainer payments -- amounts undisclosed. A dozen others have been in U.S. detention since last year.
In addition, Iraq's new Ministry of Science and Technology pays stipends of about $50 to $200 a month to hundreds of others. But this "is not enough to stabilize them," said Obeidi, who left Iraq last year for the United States and was a director of Iraq's Military Industrialization Commission.
Despite Bush administration claims to the contrary, international inspectors have confirmed that Iraq's work on banned arms ended more than a decade ago, after which the scientists and engineers were diverted to work on conventional weapons, or to more peaceful pursuits.
But the U.S.-British invasion of March 2003, and the subsequent wholesale looting and arson in Baghdad, devastated many of their workplaces.
"The infrastructure was damaged, buildings were destroyed, equipment was looted," Obeidi said. Some are teaching at reopened universities, but "only a small percentage of the scientists have found work."
|
One more time:
There were no WMD's in Iraq.
Before 9/11 happened, there was no "excuse" to attack Iraq.
Powell, Rice, and Tenent are all on record saying that Saddam was
contained and that there was no evidence that he had reconstituted
pre-Gulf War weapons programs, They said that the sanctions and the
no fly zone patrols WERE WORKING!
Bush and Cheney keep changing the reasons we invaded Iraq, as
events unfold that expose their deliberate misleading manipulation of
some Americans and some foreigners.
The newest reason is to prevent Saddam from passing knowledge of
weapons making to terrorists. That reason is as dubious as all the others.
Can you provide anything to substantiate your defense of Bush except
to quote him? Will you even consider that this was a mistaken war that
has cost too many American and Iraqi lives and too much money, and that
it has destablizied the middle east, and exposes Bush as an international
war criminal and as an incompetent commander in chief ?
I suspect that you will continue to back his orders to send more of our
troops to their deaths in Iraq, while mistaking your unquestioning loyalty
as "patriotism", instead of as enabling a pathetic failure of a president !