Post #105,969
6/13/03 9:18:50 AM
|
The principle error that you and NRO are making...
isn't regarding the existance of WMD in Iraq, but rather the threat level that Iraq posed the US by possessing WMD.
I agree with you that all but the most extreme Democrats agreed that Iraq had/has WMD.
However, it was the Bush administration (not Clinton, not Democrats, not the French) who argued that Iraq's WMD (which appear to be nonexistant) posed an real and immediate danger to the US.
Alas, that isn't the issue, however.
What's really lacking in this (and previous) administrations is any willingness to accept responsiblity for their actions. Currently they (and you) are finger-pointing to Democrats, the CIA, anyone -- rather than accept the fact that Iraq did not pose the immediate and dangerous threat that they told the entire world.
|
Post #106,025
6/13/03 1:13:18 PM
|
Re: The principle error that you and NRO are making...
What's really lacking in this (and previous) administrations is any willingness to accept responsiblity for their actions. Currently they (and you) are finger-pointing to Democrats, the CIA, anyone...
The only folks I'm pointing fingers at are those who had no problem with the previous administration bombing Iraq because of WMDs, but are now in an uproar about Bush using WMDs as a reason to go to war with Iraq.
...rather than accept the fact that Iraq did not pose the immediate and dangerous threat that they told the entire world.
I don't accept your proposition that Iraq was not an immediate and dangerous threat, so I'm not ducking responsibility for anything.
Regards,
John
|
Post #106,026
6/13/03 1:25:28 PM
6/13/03 1:26:53 PM
|
In what way was
Iraq an immediate and dangerous threat to the USA?
No air force
No navy
No long range missles
No way for any WMD to reach the US.
Suicide bombers are NOTWMD.
Hijacking a plane is not WMD.
Terrorism is not a WMD.
And none of those items present a significant enough of a threat to US security to warrent first strike actions. Retalitory attack, debateable.
When they took the Fourth Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.
When they took the Fifth Amendment, I was quiet because I was innocent.
When they took the Second Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't own a gun.
Now they've taken the First Amendment, and I can't say anything about it.
Edited by jbrabeck
June 13, 2003, 01:26:53 PM EDT
|
Post #106,038
6/13/03 2:38:26 PM
|
Curiouser and curiouser....
The only folks I'm pointing fingers at are those who had no problem with the previous administration bombing Iraq because of WMDs, but are now in an uproar about Bush using WMDs as a reason to go to war with Iraq.
I seem to recall that the previous administration was called out on the use of force for Iraq, Bosnia and Serbia. Furthermore, I seem to remember them being called on out the issues on honesty and (military) intelligence. I can't speak for others, but my issue with our current administration was the presentation that Iraq represented a clear and present danger to the US. In citing their evidence of a clear and present danger, they cited the existance of WMD on Iraq, the willingness of Iraq to use said weapons, and the danger that such weapons could be used against us. To quote: "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." - GWB, Oct. 8, 2002. [link|http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/08/bush.iraq/| CNN ]
I don't accept your proposition that Iraq was not an immediate and dangerous threat, so I'm not ducking responsibility for anything.
Then please explain exactly how America was in danger from Iraq of a mushroom cloud from a country that had no nuclear weapons.
|
Post #106,039
6/13/03 2:47:41 PM
|
well the government treats us like mushrooms
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
"I get this feeling that this is the last time in history when the offbeats like me will have a chance to live free in the nooks and crannies of the huge and rigid structure of an increasingly codified society. Fifty years from now I would be hunted down in the street. They would drill 3 holes in my skull and make me sensible reliable and adjusted" Travis McGee circa 1964
|
Post #106,041
6/13/03 3:04:04 PM
|
Re: Curiouser and curiouser....
Then please explain exactly how America was in danger from Iraq of a mushroom cloud from a country that had no nuclear weapons.Please restate your argument after reading [link|http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/08/bush.iraq/|the paragraphs prior to the quote you posted]: The White House released satellite photographs that Bush said demonstrate that "Iraq is rebuilding sites that have been part of [Saddam's] nuclear program in the past." (Surveillance photos)
Without mentioning anyone by name, the president appeared to address those critics who say the administration has failed to explain why Saddam poses such a threat at this time and why any action must be contemplated.
"If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it makes any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grow stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons? Bush asked.
|
Post #106,046
6/13/03 3:59:29 PM
|
And I rest my case...
The White House released satellite photographs that Bush said demonstrate that "Iraq is rebuilding sites that have been part of [Saddam's] nuclear program in the past." (Surveillance photos)
You're citing construction - prior to the war - as source that the US was in danger. It's a nice try, but it wasn't the question I asked. Please explain how the US is in danger from a nuclear attack from a country that doesn't possess nuclear weapons. Note: that construction was concerning - because it was supposed to be for centifuges. Also, no centifuges have been found.
Powell also had told the United Nations that "numerous intelligence reports over the past decade from sources inside Iraq" indicated "a covert force of up to a few dozen Scud-variant ballistic missiles."
None has been found.
U.S. allegations that Iraq was trying to develop a nuclear weapon have also not been verified.
Much discussed were some high-strength aluminum tubes Iraq tried to import. The CIA argued they were for centrifuges essential to a nuclear weapons program. Experts from the State and Energy departments said they were for conventional artillery rockets, Thielmann said.
No centrifuges have been reported found.
In his State of the Union address, Bush said that Britain had learned that Saddam "recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
The claim rested significantly on a letter or letters between officials in Iraq and Niger that were obtained by European intelligence agencies. The communications are now accepted as forged.
[link|http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apwashington_story.asp?category=1152&slug=Iraq%20Weapons%20Evidence| Seattle Source ]
But on Iraq's suspected nuclear-weapons development, which for him and other analysts was the most alarming program, "we've clearly uncovered nothing" so far, he said.
The U.S. military has captured two Iraqi mobile laboratories apparently designed for biological arms, although no traces of germ weapons were found.
[...]
Still, along with the missing chemical and biological weapons stocks, several key statements by Bush and his aides have yet to pan out or have been proved false:
In the president's State of the Union address Jan. 28, he cited a British intelligence report that Iraq sought to import "significant quantities" of uranium from Africa.
Intelligence officials said his statement was based on documents forged by a diplomat in Rome from the African nation of Niger, who made them using a fax machine. The diplomat sold the forgeries to Italian intelligence officials, who dutifully passed them on to the United States and Britain, officials said.
Bush, Powell and others spoke of Iraq's attempt to import aluminum tubes, which they said could be used in centrifuges to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.
Powell, in a presentation Feb. 5 to the U.N. Security Council, acknowledged there was a debate over the tubes' intended use, but said the majority of U.S. analysts believed they were meant for a nuclear weapons program.
Mohamed El Baradei, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the Security Council a month later that extensive investigation "failed to uncover any evidence that Iraq intended to use these 81-millimeter tubes for any project other than the reverse engineering of rockets."
[link|http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/6032355.htm| Bay Area Source ]
DAVID ALBRIGHT: The example of where the aluminum tubes that were posited as only usable in the gas centrifuge program -- I actually learned about that case almost two years ago. There was a very intense debate about the use of the tubes, but it wasn't by any means certain what the actual use was, but when Vice President Cheney and Condoleezza Rice went out on TV, they sided clearly with the side that said these tubes are only for centrifuges and moreover, it shows that Iraq is close to nuclear weapons and we have to act now.
RICHARD PERLE: Some of us happen to think that the evidence was pretty impressive that these were intended for nuclear purposes.
DAVID ALBRIGHT: But many didn't think that. Some of our best centrifuge experts in this country didn't think that evidence was impressive.
RICHARD PERLE: And other experts thought it was.
DAVID ALBRIGHT: Well, then that division should have been presented; that's all I would say.
RICHARD PERLE: I think it was.
[link|http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june03/wmd_5-29.html| Online NewsHour Source ]
|
Post #106,048
6/13/03 4:14:51 PM
|
It's not about WMDs
It's about deception.
As lucidly explained [link|http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/06/13_betrayal.html|here].
Bush lied. Thousands died.
-----------------------------------------
[link|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html|?W]
Where were you in 72?
|
Post #106,072
6/13/03 7:38:29 PM
|
Yes, it is &^$#&^# Exactly That.
..but a matter of no import to religious 'argument'. The bethrothed never sees the warts, only The Ring.
aa and The Flag a wavin in the breezy rhetoric.
Ashton
|
Post #106,120
6/14/03 11:42:20 AM
|
The decision to make war drove the intelligence...
[...]
What the Bush administration did was gild the lily \ufffd disseminating information that ranged from selective to preposterous. The president himself gave credence to the claim that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Africa, a story that (as Seymour Hersh's investigations leave little doubt) was based on transparently fraudulent information. Colin Powell in his February performance at the U.N. insisted that those famous aluminum tubes Iraq bought were intended for bomb-making, although the technical experts at the Department of Energy had made an awfully strong case that the tubes were for conventional rocket launchers. And as James Risen disclosed in The Times this week, two top Qaeda planners in custody told American interrogators \ufffd one of them well before the war was set in motion \ufffd that Osama bin Laden had rejected the idea of working with Saddam. That inconclusive but potent evidence was kept quiet in the administration's zeal to establish a meaningful Iraqi connection to the fanatical war on America.
[...]
Those who say flimflam intelligence drove us to war, though, have got things backward. It seems much more likely that the decision to make war drove the intelligence.
The origins of this may be well intentioned. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, the most dogged proponent of war against Iraq, is also a longtime skeptic of American institutional intelligence-gathering. He has argued over the years, from within the government and from outside, that the C.I.A. and its sister agencies often fail to place adequate emphasis on what they don't know, and that they "mirror-image" \ufffd make assumptions about what foreign regimes will do based on what we would do.
[link|http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/14/opinion/14KELL.html?pagewanted=all&position=| NY Times ]
|
Post #106,149
6/14/03 9:06:21 PM
|
"The Boys Who Cried Wolfowitz" - love it!
Alex
"Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life." -- Eric Hoffer
|
Post #106,327
6/17/03 12:38:51 PM
|
Re: And I rest my case...
[link|http://www.efreedomnews.com/News%20Archive/Iraq/Saddam%20Nuke.htm|Saddam's Bomb Maker: Iraq Working on 'Hiroshima Size' Nuke (2/19/2002)] Citing U.S. intelligence estimates, Dr. Khidir Hamza told nationally syndicated radio taker Sean Hannity, "I don't think he has [nuclear weapons] right now but it may not take long for him to have it - a year or two probably."
"U.S. intelligence estimates at least a year. Germany estimates by 2005, three nuclear weapons," the top Iraqi nuke scientist said.
Dr. Hamza, who defected to the U.S. in 1994, warned about Hussein's nuclear weapons program in his autobiography, "Saddam's Bombmaker," three years ago. More recently he has been working closely with U.S. intelligence agencies.
...
German intelligence now believes Hussein once again has all the bombmaking materials he needs except for the enriched uranium necessary for the nuclear core.
"According to the Germans he, more or less, has 30 to 35 percent of the technology needed to enrich uranium for bomb grade," said Hamza, adding, "so he will have enough uranium, and he already has a stockpile of uranium to use."
The top Iraqi nuke scientist said that, based on what he witnessed, Hussein is working on "Hiroshima size" weapons of "12 to 20 kilotons."
But he cautioned:
"There was some enhancement to the bomb that could raise it to 40 kilotons. So you are looking at [a] realistic nuclear weapons stockpile equivalent to that of, say, at least India and Pakistan - and if it continues, probably larger." Do you argue that Iraq did not have the capability to produce a nuclear weapon sometime in the next 5 years? If not, do you argue that Sadaam in possession of a nuke is not a serious threat to the US? Regards, John
|
Post #106,336
6/17/03 1:51:08 PM
|
Come back with some real evidence...
Do you argue that Iraq did not have the capability to produce a nuclear weapon sometime in the next 5 years?
Certainly not. I'm stating that the evidence produced so far to indicate that Iraq was attempting to produce nuclear weapons has been fabricated. Furthermore, I'm stating that I believe our administration was intent not on discovering whether or not Saddam/Iraq were intent on producing nuclear weapons but rather that they were intent on stating that Saddam/Iraq were intent on producing nuclear weapons to justify a military action. Furthermore, if you read my link - you'd see my evidence for such a statement. (Niger uranium, aluminum tubes, etc.) Finally - ask Dr. Hamza how long it would take a country - any country - to develop nuclear weapons given the resources. (Hint: we did it - the first one ever, from scratch - in less than 5 years.)
If not, do you argue that Sadaam in possession of a nuke is not a serious threat to the US?
Absolutely - but then I didn't claim that Saddam was in, or attempting to be in, possession of a nuclear weapon. Someone else claimed that we were in danger of finding out via a mushroom cloud. Blah - I've said (repeatedly now) that Bush wanted to go in and made stuff up to do it. I've given my examples. All you've come up with a Scientist that says Saddam didn't have the weapons but might be able to in a couple of years. Come back with some real evidence.
|
Post #209,515
6/2/05 3:36:44 AM
|
Nearly two years later....
Blah - I've said (repeatedly now) that Bush wanted to go in and made stuff up to do it. I've given my examples. All you've come up with a Scientist that says Saddam didn't have the weapons but might be able to in a couple of years. Come back with some real evidence.
and we have the [link|http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memo.html|Downing Street Memo]... The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
|
Post #209,571
6/2/05 11:21:34 AM
8/21/07 5:56:50 AM
|
Yep - but lets start a new thread about Downing Street Memos (new thread)
Created as new thread #209570 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=209570|Yep - but lets start a new thread about Downing Street Memos]
"Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" --Mark Twain
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein
"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
|
