tecoyah

Before the War in Iraq, We as the American People were told the justification for said war was to remove the threat of attack on our soil by Saddam and Iraq.
The term WMD became a household term due to the everyday reminders of the capabilities of Iraq. It is now clear this was incorrect at best. Some accuse the administration of Lying to garner the support required by the population for War.
These statements are on record, and are a matter of factual history, there can be no question as to these facts.

Please defend these facts, or prove them as falsehoods.


* The above statement is not meant as a troll, but is an attempt to gain insight into the topic in question. Any resemblance to a "Troll", "Trolling", or any type of mobile fishing is completely cooincidental and unintentional. The poster accepts no responsability for feeling of hurt, frustration, of dismay felt by those reading this statement, and holds no liability for changed perspectives*

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

MSD

Trolls will be deleted and the poster warned. This could be a really good discussion and I don't want to have to close the thread. I'm willing to go around with a can of RAID instead of putting up a tent and bombing for roaches.

nanofever

Not to be an ass, but your statements have inconsistencies because the sentence "These statements are on record, and are a matter of factual history, there can be no question as to these facts." makes discussion moot because your focus for discussion is "defend these facts, or prove them as falsehoods". If the facts are a matter of record and not questionable, this thread has no reason for existing. If the facts are not a matter of record or have a vague area open for interpretation, then the sentence "These statements are on record, and are a matter of factual history, there can be no question as to these facts." is false.

I believe your premises for framing the debate either contradict with the resolution of the debate or everything syncs and no debate will occure because you simply posted un-debateable material (IE. 2+2=4, lets debate).

I'm strongly leaning in the direction of a false premise because it is a VERY rare occurance for statements as large as your opening premise to be set in stone with no room for interpretation (facts).

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

tecoyah

Perhaps I should clarify my intent.

The statements in my post are fact, yet are not a matter of serious discussion for reasons that may very well be clarified as this thread progresses. I am attempting to engage a debate based purely on factual information, and get the feedback of those who find these facts to be suspect. Forgive the syntax of my statement if you find the wording to be contrary to discussion.
This thread is an effort to bring Tilted Politics back to what I remember it being in the past, a serious exchange of information, and opinion, concerning the trials our leadership must face to be effective for us all.

Again, I simply ask that someone of a differing mindset, refute the information I have refered to as fact, or explain the discrepancy inherent in the statement.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Ustwo

This may sound harsh but I’m not sure if you are really ready for a real discussion. I don’t mean this in a mean way but I think right now you are to busy letting other people think for you. I found your response to Superbelt’s obviously crackpot thread to be disheartening. I think you are to willing to accept what others say and not using your own mind to figure out if what they are saying makes sense. Basically you are susceptible to well packaged propaganda. This is the kind of thing you need to work out and not trust ANY source, just work out in your brain which seems to have any sort of logic to it.

Also while I’ve done long threads in the past where I site sources, look at page after page of information, and waste a lot of Googles bandwidth I am not going to do that here. I’ve done it enough and quite frankly I don’t have a lot of time for it. I will give you the information I have garnered over the last couple of years in everything from articles to interviews but if you ask me for a source I won’t have it. My brain doesn’t work that way, to me only the information is important, and from personal experience as a scientist, if you find someone who likes to quote sources while he talks about a subject, odds are he doesn’t know anything of his own on said subject. If I were doing my thesis again fine, but not for TFP. Also when I do such threads the subject tends to die and no one responds for some reason.

Now for your question.

This is not entirely true. The justification for said war was Saddams refusal to comply with the UN resolution, 1441 or whatever it was. I don’t think Saddam playing games with the UN inspectors needs to be looked at much further. Part of the problem is that EVERYONE had something to say about Saddam’s WMD’s, and there were reports of this and that system and how it could reach the US, or Israel, and what happened to all the Scuds etc etc etc that what was official and unofficial got blurred. Please note that the issue was never IF he had WMD’s but what would happen if they fell into the wrong hands. The fact that Saddam has WMD’s was not disputed. There were still WMD’s missing from what was known in the first Gulf war. He was playing games with the Brit and US planes in the no fly zone constantly, and he had kicked out the inspectors in 1998. Clinton ordered missile strikes in Desert Fox, to attack said WMD stock piles and at best they estimate they hit 78% of their targets. Clinton thought there were WMD’s, and Bush thought there were WMD’s. What happened to the WMD’s? That’s the real question and perhaps the scary one. One theory advanced by David Kay (or whoever the weapons inspector was) that they were probably shipped to Syria prior to the war. Yes we had intel of trucks passing over the boarder, Syria had/has a WMD program, Syria also had an illegal oil pipeline from Iraq, and Syria has a Baathist government like Iraq. Syria is also where most of those lovely foreign terrorists came over the border from to infiltrate Iraq. I find this very plausible as the amount of anthrax missing would fit into one large truck (they don’t call them WMD’s because they are big) and Saddam had YEARS to prepare. Now one thing that is apparent is that there was no full fledged WMD program going in Iraq at the time of the War. That is there were no secret factories making new ones. What is also apparent is that they were waiting for the sanctions to be lifted to begin again. They had the lab equipment, the personnel waiting for the green light. We can talk about who wanted to lift those sanctions another time.

I will also refrain from stating why invading Iraq was a good idea beyond WMD’s or the fact that 50 million people are free from truly tyrannical governments under GWB.

So I have to ask you, a few questions on your logic meter.

1. Did Bill Clinton also lie about Iraq having WMD’s?
2. If Bush lied about the WMD’s and knew it to be false, why didn’t he (being obviously evil) have some planted? It would not have been that hard. ONE soldier/agent could have planted enough Anthrax to do it. Hell they could have used the same strain as was found in the DC mail and really set it up.

According to the left GWB is both a bumbling fool, and at the same time capable of massive deception and intricate conspiracies that would make Machiavelli blush. You are going to have to trust your own judgment.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

kutulu

Honestly I don't think you'll get a good discussion on this thread. It's close to the election in what has been a highly charged election year. I think it will be quite some time before actual debates can take place without both sides accusing the other side of misrepresenting "facts" and/or acting like a parrot.

tecoyah

Thank you Ustwo....your reply (at least the second half) was concise and accurate. Truly the information withn the world community did point to WMD production in Iraq. As this thread was meant to deal with this issue in its entirety, I truly appreciate the input you have given. Part of the reasoning for invasion was indeed the failure to comply with U.N. resolutions, and this must be taken into account in the grand scheme of things. Still...the facts remain that we were told of weapons that simply do not exist. These may have been moved to Syria, but there is no factual information to confirm this.

Please continue to defend.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

OpieCunningham

These two paragraphs are truly amazing.

Paragraph 1- You're incapable of reason because you don't think for yourself.
Paragraph 2- I am very wise and well researched so trust me when I tell you things.

Also impressive is the portion of paragraph 2 which denounces the concept or importance of a bibliography.

smooth

I doubt you will get too much intelligent discussion, either.

You already have a prime example in ustwo's post of the tendency to distill information rather than engage with its intricacies.

Two blatant examples are:

1. Distilling the supporters' reasons into the most expedient/acceptable one.

There were a myriad of reasons given for the Iraqi endeavor, not a single one. This allows anyone supporting the endeavor to point to an equally defensible reason when a questioner digs into the rationale for any one particular reason.

2. Distilling the oppositions' arguments into the least expedient/acceptable one

This is usually followed be explaining away all criticism as one composite, self-contradicting position. In fact, the "left" movement is comprised of numerous groups of people--each with their own identities, ideas, and issues of concern. One person from the "left" can think Bush is an idiot while another thinks he is the most manipulative and calculating leader around--without contradicting the "movement"


Of course, the entire post was preceeded by a nice long ad hominem against you, with a few red herrings tossed in for good measure.


The most blatant example of that I will point out is the notion that we were upholding sanctions and the will of the UN/inspectors.

1. The inspectors claim they had the most compliance they had ever had a week before the war. Their own statements are that it was the US intelligence that was leading them on wild goose chases through the nation--not Saddam's reluctance to open any doors. That's their own statements--and they contradict the statements of our government.

The UN inspectors were also blindsided by our president's bumping up of the timeline and altering demands (first open the doors to inspection, then they became leave the country or else, then it was tomorrow morning we bomb the shit out of you; we called it decapitating the head, in case anyone doesn't remember, and our entire nation watched it on live television--so boo to the other thread arguing about the barbarism of decapitation in wartime and it only applying to evil, barbaric muslims)

2. The UN inspectors asked for more time.

3. The UN itself didn't authorize what occurred.

Now, we can dispute whether we should abide by the UN for our domestic safety (in fact, that's where the public discouse eventually had to go in order to reconcile the apparent logical contradiction of our defense of the UN's demands against the composite will of the UN).

See when that logical contradiction is pointed out, the response will be that the UN was weak, is guided/controlled by nations opposed to our interestests, and etc. Anything in the hopes that you will forget we are really talking about whether the US was actually acting in the will of the UN. It obviously wasn't--it was acting in its own interests, but for some reason people don't like to put it so plainly because that imparts some blame for what happened.

If we can appeal to a higher power (as in the UN or a deity), that somehow lets this nation off the hook for what it culturally claims to be against our values--not to go to war unless we absolutely have to. This isn't the case historically, but it is embedded in our cultural value system--hence the need to shape shift the debate whenever it's most expedient.

The reasons are ideological, not factual, hence my conclusion that you won't get very meaningful explanations.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

tecoyah

Guys....please limit the discussion to pertinent facts. Let us refrain from petty attacks on each others character....only then will we have a true debate of the facts.....again, PLEASE.

The guy directed his statements at ME, and I let it go....can't you do so as well.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

phyzix525

Instead of having to defend, why don't you prove that the WMDs were not shipped to syria. This is a wasted thread.

__________________
It's hard to remember we're alive for the first time
It's hard to remember we're alive for the last time
It's hard to remember to live before you die
It's hard to remember that our lives are such a short time
It's hard to remember when it takes such a long time

Mephisto2

You've just contradicted yourself.

Doing research, googling, quoting references... but then you say that doing so means the researcher can't think for themselves.

Also, as you are not a weapons expert, chemist, military analyst, intelligence agent, economist, political advisor/confidant of the President... or any of the many people and sources we use everyday to learn about the world and this subject in particular, by definition you have to rely upon said sources. To state that basing one's opinions on what they learn from others is unreliable is nonesense. It's like saying "I don't believe the moon exists, as I have never been there."

Yes, to an extent. But the US President, Secretary Colin Powell and Blair also used the hype and threat of masses of WMD's as arguments to convince their respective people. It turns out the intelligence was flawed and, more importantly, never questioned.

The issue here is not that Bush/Blair specifically lied to their people, but that they brought their countries to war based upon hearsay and didn't even have the prudent professionalism to analyse their intelligence, question their sources and investigate conflicting reports. That's simply not acceptable when you are a leader of the most powerful nation on Earth and one of its allies.

Well, I agree that has not been resolved satisfactorily. But the consensus seems to be that they were indeed destroyed as the Iraqis claimed. If not, why has not one piece of evidence been unearthed to counter that claim?

And another theory is that they were destroyed and/or Iraq never had as much as the Western intelligence communities believed.

And you know this because you saw them?! No, you know this because you base your knowledge on what you read and believe. Exactly the same position for which you criticise Techoya for.

Agreed. But then the President changed from spouting repeated justifications for war on "Weapons of Mass Destruction" to "Weapons of Mass Destruction Related Programs". Quite a difference. I'll leave it up to the American people and families to decide if that was worth 1,000 dead US soldiers and countless dead Iraqi civilians.

Aha... So the war was justified on destorying non-existant programs or, more accurately, to prevent the Iraqis from doing something you think they might have done?

I have no love for the Iraqi regime, but your argument is beginning to get tenous.

I believe the much touted "mobile chemical warfare labs" were proven to be no such thing. I'm not sure about other labs. You can make Anthrax in a high school chemistry lab. Should they all be destroyed? Mustard gas can be made in a pharmacy. Should they all be destroyed. Technicians? How about we lock up all Iraqi chemistry students too? [rhetorical questions]

If that's justification enough, when does the invasion of North Korea begin? Then China? Then the numerous other tyrannical governments that the US supports?

Don't use the argument, or even refer to it, as it is so rank with hypocracy as to be worthless.

No, I don't think he did. But he didn't blindly rely upon the war-mongering hawks in his government either. And he didn't let a personal familial grudge cloud his judgement.

Meaningless question, as he didn't lie.

You know, you're absolutely right. And "the left' who portray Bush as a mass deceiver and conspiracist are wrong. They are right about his being a bumbling fool though. One who puts profit over people and lets shadowy powers and SIGs influence his policies. To be honest, I think Bush is just a generally good meaning, but rather unintelligent man who is being played like a puppet by those "behind the throne". That's my opinion.

As are you. But if you only believe what you see with your own eyes, then you are doomed to life of short-sightedness and tunnel vision.


Mr Mephisto

OpieCunningham

It's rather impossible to prove a negative.

But since you suggested that the concept of this thread be turned around, I think it should be pointed out that the anti-war rationalization is automatic. There is never any need to prove the necessity of no war. By default, no war is the correct choice. It is the act of war which must be proven. We do not go around looking for reasons to NOT invade a country. If you believe there are reasons TO invade a country - it is your responsibility to prove those reasons.

smooth

I was correcting the notion that the inspections were failing and that we were bolstering the will of the UN.

I also pointed out a tendency of people distill information to an easily understandable position that meets with political expediency.

I wasn't addressing ustwo as a poster nor was I attacking his character.

So let what go? I didn't concern myself with how you were personally responded to and didn't even mention it in my post.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

tecoyah

PLEASE!!!!!

Are we all really this childish.....Ustwo simply stated his opinion, and is now under attack for his stance. I am trying to have a serious debate about this topic. If we can disreguard the petty differences we all have concerning personality, and right/left lean, maybe information can be exchanged.....isn't that what this forum should be about?

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

pedro padilla

basically, you´re saying prove me wrong, not prove me right. although i happen to be in complete agreement with your statement i think you should look for points still open to debate and different views of interpretation. It´s like you´ve stockpiled the answers soley for the purpose of shooting down anyone with an argument. gimme something i can feeel.

ubertuber

Well... To be really picky about saying what is factual, it is more true to say that we were told of weapons that have not been found than it is to say that we were told of weapons that simply do not exist. They may be in Syria, they may be elsewhere, or they may not have existed at all. Of course, it matters very much which one is true, but as you pointed out, at this point it is basically a matter of faith to accept a particular viewpoint.

Whether or not WMDs were transported to Syria, there was certainly an intelligence error:

1) The weapons never existed and so the intelligence provided by many entities and even several governments was wrong, or;

2) The weapons did exist, and despite our resolve we failed to prosecute the war in a way that actually secured them. They may be hidden in Iraq, Syria, or some other place.

So I suppose if you really want to think about it in terms of making a choice, you can choose which way you want to describe the error, and how responsible you think the president should be. Certainly Tenet remaining at the CIA was not an option after 9/11 and the lead-up to the Iraq war. Whatever reasons were given to the public, it would be hard for me to imagine a political or professional future for him after those two errors. Of course, the President (Bush, Clinton, whoever) is responsible for what happens below them. However, there are clearly several points of view as to whether this includes losing the presidency. Believe it or not, I actually think that the proposed reforms for the intelligence system and their oversight are more important in the long term than who our next president will be. After all, presidents come and go, but overhauling an entire system that includes many agencies and the political clout of the intel guys doesn't happen very often. What is most important to me is that this opportunity to bring our information-gathering capablities into the real world is not wasted. President Bush's decision to give the new intelligence director budgetary authority is a strong step in the right direction. I'm not sure if it will be enough to keep him in office though...

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

tecoyah

My apologies for the misunderstanding

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Ustwo

Until they are found I can't defend. Now its quite possible that Saddam didn't have any WMD's and provoked war by ignoring the resolutions and interfearing with the weapons inspectors because he was just an idiot. I am also not overly worried if Syria has them because if they do they would have to be raving lunatics to give them to any terrorists to use. If they did so and we were able to link them to it, they would cease to exsist as a government, at least with Bush in office.

Now if your thoughts are Iraq must have had WMD's and they must directly threaten the US for there to be just cause for war then I don't think you will be satisfied anytime soon, but I would like you to answer one question as well.

Did Bill Clinton lie about WMD's?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

tecoyah

Look for "Defend this" #2

Coming to a forum near you

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

smooth

Well, maybe I'm on your ignore list, but you keep restating that Saddam was interfering with inspectors.

The inspectors claim they had open access leading up to the war. Worse, they also claim that our own intelligence agencies were giving them outdated/useless information that had them running all over the country to dilapidated warehouses.

That's what the UN inspectors claim. Those are their statements. They made more, but those ones really ought to not be ignored if one is to argue that the justification hinges, in part, on the notion that Saddam's regime was not abiding by the rules as laid down by the UN and its inspectors.

When I raised this earlier last year, people blasted Hans Blix as having a particular agenda. Now it just seems like his statements are being outright ignored.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Ustwo

Guys try not to confuse a personal attack with a honnest observation. Based on these threads I think tecoyah is relying to much on others. I posted for him not for you and I might as well have PMed him based on some of the responses here.

I gave up reading right about here....

Anyone who has been in academia would know this type. Doing research is just fine, but when you find people who stand around and quote sources while they talk about a subject is a red flag to me that they are more worried about sounding smart then understanding. I don't worry about the name of the author, the date, and the journal a theory was in. Same with the WMD discussion. I watch, I listen, I read, but my point was if you want me to say when/where/who said it I won't be able to tell you because I don't remember.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Mephisto2

You know Ustwo, I think you might just be right there. It worked for him over the previous 10 years. I think he just miscalculated.

Well, I don't think Syria would provide WMDs (if it has them) to terrorists. I think that's just a story Ann Coulter uses to promote her racist tirades and used to scare young Neocon children at night. :-)

Good point. If we base any invasion on the criteria that the US must be directly threatened, then you're right. Personall, despite what others may believe, I do not. I think military action to remove a despot is indeed justified. But you can't keep changing the reasons, "flip flopping" (to coin a currently popular term with anti-Kerry pundits), and moving the goal posts when your original reasons are proven wrong.

And I don't think Clinton lied. Why does Clinton always pop up in threads here? Isn't he a private citizen now? :-)


Mr Mephisto

OpieCunningham

No. Bill Clinton stated his opinion which was shared essentially by the world.

George Bush (et. al.) significantly amplified that opinion into the concept that we were a mere moment away from massive descruction at the hands of Saddam. 45 minutes. Mushroom clouds over New York. To pilfer and adjust Mephisto's Moon analogy - Bill Clinton said the Moon was almost certainly made of cheese. George Bush said it was the best cheese he had ever tasted.

As to the question of faith that has been brought up - did Iraq have WMDs on the scale that George Bush said they had and they've been moved or did they never have that stockpiling of WMDs - this question of faith was removed from the table by Kay - who very clearly said, after doing much research that no one else on the planet has done, that Iraq did not have WMDs nor even the programs necessary to develop WMDs nor the ability to hide the previous existence of such programs.

So the only question of faith remaining is - do you believe Kay or not?

I tend to believe the people that not only have little to no motives for lying but were also the people directly in charge of researching the question.

tecoyah

I would agree that I rely on others. That is one of the ways in which I gather information. I rely on you, Ustwo for some of the perspective I use in evaluation of circumstance. This is not, in my opinion a weakness. It can be of great insight however, to listen to as many opinions as possible before setting on the road to knowledge.

As off topic as it is....I will answer you question about Clinton, before attempting to get this thread back on topic:

Yes it is likely he lied, or at the very least withheld information.


There is obviously no factual information concerning WMD shipments to Syria. We will let that go.
There is debate as to whether the inspectors were allowed to finish the Job they were sent there for.
There is debate concerning whether the Administration mislead the people, or was mislead itself where WMD's were involved.

Does anyone have Facts pertaining to these issues?

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Ustwo

Bush never said that.

The 45 min claim came from British Intel who had a source which said Iraq could DEPLOY a chemical/bio attack in 45 mins. Thats a hell of a lot different then what you said.

The ironic thing with all this is that there is the belief that people were playing games with Saddam and getting money for weapons programs which they weren't really doing work on. We get intel from a govt source about a new program, Saddam thinks he is getting a new toy, and a scientist is spending the money. This is something else Kay noted.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

pan6467

Ustwo, just a question, if you find giving facts so time consuming, why do you demand others show their facts or you claim they are arguing on "opinion". Just curious as to why the hypocrasy?

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

OpieCunningham

       

pan6467

As for WMDs in Iraq. saddam didn't have much choice he had to keep Iran thinking he had them. Obviously, everyone believed he had them. It was a scare tactic that backfired.

Were having them or threatening to have them enough to go to war against him? NO, there were peaceful ways out and we did nothing to try any of them. Bush and company had their minds made up for a very long time.

What is sad is the administration is going to do the same to Iran. Google and find out the things being said from the administration under-secretaries and Powell himself about Iran and you'll see they are pretty much exactly the same as those said about Iraq in the beginning.

Bad thing is Iran hasn't been beaten up and prevented from having a true army like Iraq was. We invade Iran, we are in serious trouble.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Ustwo

Why? Motives are important.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

rukkyg

This just amplifies the fact that Bush misled the public so much that they associate anything with Iraq and WMD with his lies, and then can cite them a year or 2 later as the key pieces of information (false or otherwise) that they remember.


Whether or not the "reason" to go to war with Iraq was solely WMDs, it can't be disputed that WMDs were the "reason" that Bush had so much support. Even the Democrats gave their support because of the threat that Bush told us about WMDs. They wouldn't have otherwise. Rove knew it, so that's why WMDs were made such a big deal. They still are. Because without them, we wouldn't be short 1000 young men in this country, and 10,000 people in another.

Seaver

Of course they did, just as they did the few years after the first Gulf. But lets face it how long would that have lasted?

Lebell

Well, cudos to those of you who are actually listening to each other instead of preaching.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

host

<b>Ustwo, it is 02:00 AM EDT, Sept 9, '04 and there are 32 posts on this thread, and 24 of these 32 posts were submitted by members other than
the thread author, <i>tecoyah</i>. None of the 24 posts contain a single
corroborating link. You have posted 5 times on this thread, and in your
second paragraph of your first post (quoted above), you explained in advance why you did not intend to post any links to site sources. My read is that
you deftly discredited (in advance) anyone who posted links to site sources on this thread, and you made a persuasive argument to future lurkers and
participants of this thread to give your statements equal or higher weight
because, to quote you directly; <i>"to me only the information is important, and from personal experience as a scientist, if you find someone who likes to quote sources while he talks about a subject, odds are he doesn’t know anything of his own on said subject. If I were doing my thesis again fine,"</i>. Although you predicted that odds favor me "not knowing anything of his own" regarding this subject, I will ask all readers to consider what
key Bush Administration officials said about Saddam and his WMD capacity prior to 9/11 2001, a date when events took place that increasingly have
the appearance of (to me, and to others) bearing a disturbing similarity to the
<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0316-08.htm">
Reichstag fire in 1933</a> because of the striking parallels in the post disaster reactions of the sitting 1933 government<br> and the sitting 2001 government, down to the "patriot act" type legislation both governments swiftly enacted,
and the coining and dissemination of the new term "homeland".<p>
My first evidence that 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, 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>
<P>
Next, we offer a quote from National Security Advisor, Dr. Rice, date July 29, '01: </b><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>
<p><b>
Now...Ustwo, I believe that you distort the position of the "left" that, "GWB is both a bumbling fool, and at the same time capable of massive deception and intricate conspiracies". I offer, in argument, this segment from a July 12, 2001
press briefing. Note the link (below) to the web page displaying this quote.</b>
<i>"Q Ari, on the subject of Karl Rove's involvement, one of the things that's attracted attention and criticism is the fact that Karl is the senior political strategist for the President and, yet, he's also deeply involved, and has been deeply involved in some policy issues. Some people say that's inappropriate. This, again, illustrates that nexus of politics and policy in Karl's portfolio. How would you respond to the criticisms that your senior political strategist --

MR. FLEISCHER: I dismiss it as utter nonsense from people who know how good and valued a worker Karl is for the President and for all of us here in the White House. Karl performs his job in a superb fashion, and Karl is in charge of inter-governmental affairs and people should bring business to Karl Rove if they want to have an issue considered, and Karl will exercise his discretion and judgment.

It's the right of the American people to bring their matters to the government, to everybody who works here in the White House, including Karl. Karl does his job.

Q The question is, is it appropriate, or is it, in fact, a conflict of interest to have Karl handling intergovernmental affairs and also serving as the chief political strategist for the President. Is that an inappropriate mixture of --

MR. FLEISCHER: Of course not.

Q Why isn't it?

MR. FLEISCHER: Why is it?

Q Because it's mixing policy and politics.

MR. FLEISCHER: I think all the decisions that the President has made -- the President makes are based on the merits. And those include a variety of considerations. "</i> <br>
<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/07/20010712-4.html">
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/07/20010712-4.html</a><p>
<b>Karl Rove has been called "Bush's Brain" ;
<i> Rove is more than a master manipulator of the news media. He's a stealthy smear artist who does whatever he can get away with. And Rove has gotten away with plenty. That's how George W. Bush became governor of Texas ... and president of the United States. What remains to be seen is whether Rove's techniques will again prove successful when this country votes on Nov. 2.</i><p>
<a href="http://yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_12937.shtml">
http://yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_12937.shtml</a><p>
Links to (off) site sources are required to make an argument here.....one
worth reading, anyway. The Mods are on record agreeing, and I suspect
many members will also agree.</b>

tecoyah

This experiment is obviously a complete failure. We have degraded as usual, to bickering and partisan politics. Thanx for playing.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha