Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
|
ace....re: "The danger to America from the Iraqi regime is grave and growing." You posted that "message" from the white house, in your post #110.....
My question is, why???
In my post,
<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2239744&postcount=93">#93</a>
I included Rumsfeld's <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-07-08-uranium-usat_x.htm">July 2003, assertion</a> that the administration chose to "go to war", without any significant new information concerning the threat that Saddam's Iraq posed.
I also included quotes dating from Feb., 2001, until Sept. 16, 2001, which all conveyed a similar assessment from Tenet, Powell, Rice, and finally, Cheney.
All four statements amounted to, as Rice put it, in late July, 2001:
Quote:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../29/le.00.html
...........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?
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. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.
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..............
|
All of that was precedd by this news reporting:
Quote:
http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...235395,00.html
May 5, 2002
............Hawks like Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Defense Policy Board chief Richard Perle strongly believe that after years of American sanctions and periodic air assaults, the Iraqi leader is weaker than most people believe.
<b>Rumsfeld has been so determined to find a rationale for an attack that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to the terror attacks of Sept. 11. The intelligence agency repeatedly came back empty-handed. The best hope for Iraqi ties to the attack — a report that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech Republic — was discredited last week...............</b>
|
They all said words to this effect, ace:
Quote:
|
........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. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt..........
|
Rumsfeld said:
Quote:
|
......"The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder," Rumsfeld said. "We acted because we saw the existing evidence in a new light through the prism of our experience on Sept. 11."........
|
....and his words are your entire argument to justify a war against a country that was assessed as not posing a significant threat....and even Rumsfeld said, <b>"The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder"</b>
.....so why bother to post "things" like,
<b>"The danger to America from the Iraqi regime is grave and growing."</b>,
.....why, ace....even you don't believe that.....the record shows that there was no basis for that statement....it's rhetoric......and hundreds of thousands have died.....why, ace?