The past few days saw a former ambassador sent as envoy by the CIA (per Cheney's office) who reported that he indubitably asserted NO SUCH things as Iraqi purchase of Nukes from Gabon took place.
and yet several months later, those assertions were made in The State of The Union Addres by W.Bush. later to the UN.
Warner did a good job trying to explain things away. But his replies of "...I'm in the committee and therefore can not discuss the testimony.."
Even after Andrea Mitchell (wife of Alan Greenspan) said "...but the testimony has since been reported to the press...."
I see a storm brewing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html
[ July 06, 2003, 10:45 PM: Message edited by: twin58 ]
QUOTE
....
The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. (It's worth remembering that in his March \"Meet the Press\" appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was \"trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.\") At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted.
I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained international response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research program — all of which were in violation of United Nations resolutions. Having encountered Mr. Hussein and his thugs in the run-up to the Persian Gulf war of 1991, I was only too aware of the dangers he posed.
But were these dangers the same ones the administration told us about? We have to find out. America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor \"revisionist history,\" as Mr. Bush has suggested. The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons.
Joseph C. Wilson 4th, United States ambassador to Gabon from 1992 to 1995, is an international business consultant.
The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. (It's worth remembering that in his March \"Meet the Press\" appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was \"trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.\") At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted.
I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained international response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research program — all of which were in violation of United Nations resolutions. Having encountered Mr. Hussein and his thugs in the run-up to the Persian Gulf war of 1991, I was only too aware of the dangers he posed.
But were these dangers the same ones the administration told us about? We have to find out. America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor \"revisionist history,\" as Mr. Bush has suggested. The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons.
Joseph C. Wilson 4th, United States ambassador to Gabon from 1992 to 1995, is an international business consultant.
[ July 06, 2003, 10:45 PM: Message edited by: twin58 ]
The Ambassador was interviewed again on CNN this morning. when asked about Condollexxa Rice's assertion just a few days ago that such reports may have been filed to the CIA but never was known to those in the White House (or as she says, "in DC"). He rebuts that assertion by stating he reported to the Vice President's office as wellas to the CIA.
As far as Condi Rice goes.... go back to the earlier posts on this thread from back in march and what she said to the press then when asked about the forged documents.
Colin Powell's on "Meet the press" was a classic, "If these documents turn out to have been forged, so be it."
As far as Condi Rice goes.... go back to the earlier posts on this thread from back in march and what she said to the press then when asked about the forged documents.
Colin Powell's on "Meet the press" was a classic, "If these documents turn out to have been forged, so be it."
Rice is another blatant and shameless liar. She is starting to vie with Rumsfeld for the mantle of "Chief Dissimulator" in W's White Haus. But one difference is that she sometimes halts, stumbles or in some way physically telegraphs her discomfort with the gross untruths she's spouting. W and the rest lie without even blinking an eye.
All in all, I don't think any of them will be seriously punished for what is turning out to be a grotesque betrayal of the American public's trust. As our soldiers are wounded (and notice that while the media HAVE TO report the deaths, no one is telling us the totally number of casualties from these "uncoordinated" attacks) daily, picked off in Iraq; as Afghanistan slowly succumbs to the Taliban despite being called a "success" by CITT and others; and as our troops now may entire the abyss that Liberia has become, I just shake my head and wonder why so much of America believes the endless lying and is so gullible and easily convinced by whatever falsehoods W tosses out. Why won't they wake up and see this guy for the charlatan he is?
All in all, I don't think any of them will be seriously punished for what is turning out to be a grotesque betrayal of the American public's trust. As our soldiers are wounded (and notice that while the media HAVE TO report the deaths, no one is telling us the totally number of casualties from these "uncoordinated" attacks) daily, picked off in Iraq; as Afghanistan slowly succumbs to the Taliban despite being called a "success" by CITT and others; and as our troops now may entire the abyss that Liberia has become, I just shake my head and wonder why so much of America believes the endless lying and is so gullible and easily convinced by whatever falsehoods W tosses out. Why won't they wake up and see this guy for the charlatan he is?
I don't like Condo-leeza, and never have. She strikes me as someone who thinks she is a miss know it all, and honey you don't, and neither does your boss!! 
...but Condi is a much ballyhooed Black feather in the GOP's hat. Gosh, she's one of the "Big Tent" poles. 
Re: Ms. Rice, where can I buy one of those "She's Not My Sistah" t-shirts.
NO, I am NOT joking...
In other political news, I was doing some reading for class and thought I'd share yet another few links:
http://truthout.org/docs_03/070703A.shtml (an incisive assessment, I think, but you really do need to print it out to give it full attention)
http://truthout.org/docs_03/070803B.shtml (on troop morale in Iraq)
http://truthout.org/docs_03/070803A.shtml (PROVOCATIVE, yes?!)
NO, I am NOT joking...
In other political news, I was doing some reading for class and thought I'd share yet another few links:
http://truthout.org/docs_03/070703A.shtml (an incisive assessment, I think, but you really do need to print it out to give it full attention)
http://truthout.org/docs_03/070803B.shtml (on troop morale in Iraq)
http://truthout.org/docs_03/070803A.shtml (PROVOCATIVE, yes?!)
Released just before he leaves town...
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20030708_15.html
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20030708_15.html
No Schadenfreude, given the situation the troops are facing in Iraq--but I seem to recall being trashed by right-wingers on here for calling attention to Joe Conason's early debunking of what was obviously--OBVIOUSLY--a grossly transparent lie. Now the White Haus is shifting the blame to the intelligence services...which were never cleaned up after the 9/11 debacles...samo samo, as Jean-Michael Basquiat used to tag....
[ July 08, 2003, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
QUOTE
July 8
— WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration has acknowledged for the first time that President Bush's claim in his State of the Union address in January that Iraq had sought to buy uranium from Africa was an error, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday.
\"Knowing all that we know now, the reference to Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the State of the Union speech,\" a senior Bush administration official said in a statement authorized by the White House, the newspaper reported.
The report said the administration official's statement came in response to questions about a British parliamentary commission report that raised questions about the reliability of British intelligence cited by Bush in his Jan. 28 speech.
So can we now agree that W really needs to take decisive steps with Tenet, Rumsfeld, the CIA and DIA? How many more embarrassments and lies will we have to endure before we pay with another huge wave of American lives?— WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration has acknowledged for the first time that President Bush's claim in his State of the Union address in January that Iraq had sought to buy uranium from Africa was an error, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday.
\"Knowing all that we know now, the reference to Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the State of the Union speech,\" a senior Bush administration official said in a statement authorized by the White House, the newspaper reported.
The report said the administration official's statement came in response to questions about a British parliamentary commission report that raised questions about the reliability of British intelligence cited by Bush in his Jan. 28 speech.
[ July 08, 2003, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
Shocking huh...so after 9/11 we never got our intel act together, OR was the intel there all along and the higher ups chose to disregard or bend it to suit their needs?
Just exactly where will the buck stop
Just exactly where will the buck stop
QUOTE
In a Washington Post interview, Wilson added, \"It really comes down to the administration misrepresenting the facts on an issue that was a fundamental justification for going to war. It begs the question, what else are they lying about?\" Those are the carefully chosen words of a 23-year career diplomat who, as the top U.S. official in Baghdad in 1990, was praised by then-President George H.W. Bush for his role as the last American to confront Hussein face to face after the dictator invaded Kuwait. In a cable to Baghdad, the president told Wilson: \"What you are doing day in and day out under the most trying conditions is truly inspiring. Keep fighting the good fight.\"
the statement released today was in response to the irrefutable column by Ambassador Wilson. Interesting that in the statement, there is not a bit of "I'm sorry". as in "we are sorry that we used inaccuracies to base our war efforts."
P2, I went to your link and came across this one:
Poll: More critical of Bush on economy, Iraq
Mind-numbing quote:
Poll: More critical of Bush on economy, Iraq
Mind-numbing quote:
QUOTE
Former Vice President Al Gore, who narrowly lost the 2000 presidential election, and former first lady and New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who are not candidates, attracted the most interest -- with 42 percent and 37 percent, respectively, of voters saying there was a good chance they would vote for them.
What planet are these folks on??? AL GORE IS NOT RUNNING, hello? I know we all lead busy lives and many Americans receive a substandard education and a lot of people are running around medicated to some degree or another, but I mean, is there any question at all why almost 1/3rd of people polled believe that we've found WMDs? Is there anything someone can do to wake these folks up?
I agree that people need to wake up. With all that is going on it is sad so few are paying attention.
OK so now I understand.......NOT
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20030709_295.html
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20030709_295.html
Quote from Rumsfeld in the ABC story linked above:
I know there was fear after 9/11 that Saddam could provide weapons to terrorists, even though Al Queda was not friendly with, or supportive of, Saddam until we started making noises to attack, because of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" idea. However, there is no proof this actually happened or was about to happen. So once again, what about 9/11 made the administration suddenly fear Saddam more (or was it a nice excuse)?
I have said it before and will say it again, it is highly possible that the renewed inspections, and threat of potential UN support for military action if the inspections were not started, caused Saddam to destroy his weapons. Therefore, even if the pre-war intelligence were accurate (a big if) about the existence of the weapons, we may have obtained the victory without any loss of American life and without the continuing damage to our world reputation.
QUOTE
\"The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit\" of weapons of mass destruction, Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee. \"We acted because we saw the evidence in a dramatic new light -- through the prism of our experience on 9-11.\"
My understanding has always been that we went to war because Saddam had weapons (something that everyone had been saying since 1991) and because those weapons posed an "imminent threat" to the United States. As we all know that Saddam and his government were not involved in the 9/11 attacks, how did that date suddenly change the picture? Did Saddam's weapons suddenly get more powerful overnight? Did his missles suddenly gain distance? Did his poisons suddenly become more lethal? I know there was fear after 9/11 that Saddam could provide weapons to terrorists, even though Al Queda was not friendly with, or supportive of, Saddam until we started making noises to attack, because of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" idea. However, there is no proof this actually happened or was about to happen. So once again, what about 9/11 made the administration suddenly fear Saddam more (or was it a nice excuse)?
I have said it before and will say it again, it is highly possible that the renewed inspections, and threat of potential UN support for military action if the inspections were not started, caused Saddam to destroy his weapons. Therefore, even if the pre-war intelligence were accurate (a big if) about the existence of the weapons, we may have obtained the victory without any loss of American life and without the continuing damage to our world reputation.
If I had lost someone on 9/11 I would be mad as hell if 9/11 was used as a belated reason for more loss of American lives.
I will ask again, why have we as a nation not gotten our intel act together? IF we did not have intel 9/11 was going to happen why are the alarm bells not going off if the POTUS had bad intel again?
I will ask again, why have we as a nation not gotten our intel act together? IF we did not have intel 9/11 was going to happen why are the alarm bells not going off if the POTUS had bad intel again?
As Fantomas points out, the Rumsfeld statement flies in the face of what the White House and the rest of the administration was shouting for months in order to jump start the war.
In fact, as recently as last week, administration officials (specifically Condoleezza Rice) were saying that the false information was never available to the White House. Now the tune has changed to "We had it. Shouldn't have used it.. sorry"
To wit; The W.Bush administration called upon a deadline for the UN inspectors because of the imminent danger presented by nuclear, chemical, biological and ballistic weapons of Saddam Hussein to the United States. For proof, the admin presented us with satellite images taken days prior as proof of/ this threat.
The rationale that iraqi weapons the United States gave and/or helped develop was now looked in a "new light" post 9/11 was never uttered nor shared with the UN nor Congress.
Had they pushed that as the reason for war, you can bet we woulod not have launched "shock and awe" when we did.
At a time when we are dittering about "stretching our forces too thin" by possibly sending a couple of hundred troops to Liberia, the sheer manpower we have committed to Iraq, the vast amounts of tax dollars we have already spent and will continue to spend for many years in Iraq seems illogical at best in view of these reasons for war that are simply melting away under scrutiny like the morning fog in sunlight.
[ July 09, 2003, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: ung ]
In fact, as recently as last week, administration officials (specifically Condoleezza Rice) were saying that the false information was never available to the White House. Now the tune has changed to "We had it. Shouldn't have used it.. sorry"
To wit; The W.Bush administration called upon a deadline for the UN inspectors because of the imminent danger presented by nuclear, chemical, biological and ballistic weapons of Saddam Hussein to the United States. For proof, the admin presented us with satellite images taken days prior as proof of/ this threat.
The rationale that iraqi weapons the United States gave and/or helped develop was now looked in a "new light" post 9/11 was never uttered nor shared with the UN nor Congress.
Had they pushed that as the reason for war, you can bet we woulod not have launched "shock and awe" when we did.
At a time when we are dittering about "stretching our forces too thin" by possibly sending a couple of hundred troops to Liberia, the sheer manpower we have committed to Iraq, the vast amounts of tax dollars we have already spent and will continue to spend for many years in Iraq seems illogical at best in view of these reasons for war that are simply melting away under scrutiny like the morning fog in sunlight.
[ July 09, 2003, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: ung ]
Condoleezza Rice, the same person who said nobody thought they would use planes to attack the WTC that was proven wrong too.
QUOTE
At a press conference today in South Africa, asked if he still believed that Hussein attempted to buy nuclear material in Africa, Bush sidestepped the question, responding that \"he's not trying to buy anything right now. If he's alive, he's on the run. And that's to the benefit of the Iraqi people. But, look, I am confident that Saddam Hussein had a weapons of mass destruction program.\" (Washington Post)
Bush (who is conveniently out of the country as the White House finally fesses up to the inaccuracy) side stepped the issue in South Africa as much as possible. QUOTE
Mr. Bush said that the United States had underestimated how close Mr. Hussein was to building a nuclear weapon in 1991, before the first Persian Gulf war, and that there had long been evidence that Iraq was trying again. He dismissed the criticism of his justification for war as \"attempts to try to rewrite history.\"
\"Imagine a world in which this tyrant had a nuclear weapon,\" Mr. Bush said.(NY Times)
but at the time, according to the president, the case for going to war was the imminent danger. According to the president, there was no need for IMAGINATION as iraq DID POSSESS nuclear weapons. ...oh and by the way, don't forget the 9/11 attack. hint hint... nudge nudge. And you wonder why people draw a link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq? \"Imagine a world in which this tyrant had a nuclear weapon,\" Mr. Bush said.(NY Times)
If 9/11 was the justification (per Rumsfeld) then we should have bombed Saudi Arabia!!
By the way, there was an article in the sunday NY Times detailing the saudi's efforts to spread fundamentalist islam in the muslim world including the world's most populous muslim state, Indonesia.
The red herring is getting a bit worn out. The rightness of removing Hussein from power is not in question here. The question is \"Why did the President lie?\"
according to the spokesman, Ari Fleischer per the Times...
QUOTE
He said there had been \"other reporting\" beyond the apparently forged documents about Mr. Hussein's efforts to acquire a lightly processed form of uranium known as yellow cake, but did not specify what it was.
\"I think the American people continue to express their support for ridding the world of Saddam Hussein based on just cause, knowing that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons that were unaccounted for that we're still confident we'll find,\" Mr. Fleischer said. \"I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are.\"
Huh? Just look at the last statement.\"I think the American people continue to express their support for ridding the world of Saddam Hussein based on just cause, knowing that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons that were unaccounted for that we're still confident we'll find,\" Mr. Fleischer said. \"I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are.\"
The burden of proof to tell the world where the weapons are is on the people who said those weapons did not exist. according to Ari.
So if I say something doesn't exist, then... it's up to ME to show where these things that don't exist are located?
[ July 09, 2003, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: ung ]
Here is what W.Bush said on 9/sept/2002
Here is an excerpt from the State of The Union Address 28/January/2003 (emphasis and commentary mine)
[ July 09, 2003, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: ung ]
QUOTE
President Bush, speaking during his summit with Tony Blair, said that Saddam was just six months away from going nuclear.
He said the prediction came from the IAEA but a spokesman for the agency said: \"We don't know where he got that figure from.\"
But Condoleezza Rice, the US national security adviser, said: \"We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon.\"
She added: \"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.\"
A senior US official told The New York Times: \"The jewel in the crown is nuclear.
\"The closer he gets to a nuclear capability, the more credible is his threat to use chemical or biological weapons.\"
This made an invasion of Iraq imperative, he said. \"The closer Saddam Hussein gets to a nuclear weapon, the harder he will be to deal with.\"
a few months later was the speech in front of both houses of congress and the nation.He said the prediction came from the IAEA but a spokesman for the agency said: \"We don't know where he got that figure from.\"
But Condoleezza Rice, the US national security adviser, said: \"We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon.\"
She added: \"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.\"
A senior US official told The New York Times: \"The jewel in the crown is nuclear.
\"The closer he gets to a nuclear capability, the more credible is his threat to use chemical or biological weapons.\"
This made an invasion of Iraq imperative, he said. \"The closer Saddam Hussein gets to a nuclear weapon, the harder he will be to deal with.\"
Here is an excerpt from the State of The Union Address 28/January/2003 (emphasis and commentary mine)
QUOTE
Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation. This threat is new; America's duty is familiar. ( he means war )
Now, in this century, the ideology of power and domination has appeared again, and seeks to gain the ultimate weapons of terror . (\"ultimate weapon\" referring to nuclear weapons ) Once again, this nation and all our friends are all that stand between a world at peace, and a world of chaos and constant alarm. Once again, we are called to defend the safety of our people, and the hopes of all mankind. And we accept this responsibility.
... We have called on the United Nations to fulfill its charter and stand by its demand that Iraq disarm. We're strongly supporting the International Atomic Energy Agency in its mission to track and control nuclear materials around the world. We're working with other governments to secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union, and to strengthen global treaties banning the production and shipment of missile technologies and weapons of mass destruction. ( notice the lead-in and tie-in with Iraq and nuclear threat )
Whatever action is required, whenever action is necessary, I will defend the freedom and security of the American people.
...America is working with the countries of the region - South Korea, Japan, China, and Russia - to find a peaceful solution, and to show the North Korean government that nuclear weapons will bring only isolation, economic stagnation, and continued hardship.
The North Korean regime will find respect in the world and revival for its people only when it turns away from its nuclear ambitions .
Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. (again the tie in with Iraq and nuclear catastrophe. what other \"lessons of the korean peninsula\" was there?) A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth, will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States. (the unmistakable meaning is \"threaten the United States with nukes\")
...The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa . Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminium tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production . (this is the oft quoted remark)
...Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qa'eda. (the iraq-alqaeda link. since debunked by his own agencies)
... Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained . But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. (this strongly implies that Hussein was responsible for 9/11)
The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country...
Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make . (this is very true and the reason why waging war should not be done lightly)
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2003. Terms & Conditions of reading.
Commercial information. Privacy Policy.
Now, in this century, the ideology of power and domination has appeared again, and seeks to gain the ultimate weapons of terror . (\"ultimate weapon\" referring to nuclear weapons ) Once again, this nation and all our friends are all that stand between a world at peace, and a world of chaos and constant alarm. Once again, we are called to defend the safety of our people, and the hopes of all mankind. And we accept this responsibility.
... We have called on the United Nations to fulfill its charter and stand by its demand that Iraq disarm. We're strongly supporting the International Atomic Energy Agency in its mission to track and control nuclear materials around the world. We're working with other governments to secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union, and to strengthen global treaties banning the production and shipment of missile technologies and weapons of mass destruction. ( notice the lead-in and tie-in with Iraq and nuclear threat )
Whatever action is required, whenever action is necessary, I will defend the freedom and security of the American people.
...America is working with the countries of the region - South Korea, Japan, China, and Russia - to find a peaceful solution, and to show the North Korean government that nuclear weapons will bring only isolation, economic stagnation, and continued hardship.
The North Korean regime will find respect in the world and revival for its people only when it turns away from its nuclear ambitions .
Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. (again the tie in with Iraq and nuclear catastrophe. what other \"lessons of the korean peninsula\" was there?) A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth, will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States. (the unmistakable meaning is \"threaten the United States with nukes\")
...The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa . Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminium tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production . (this is the oft quoted remark)
...Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qa'eda. (the iraq-alqaeda link. since debunked by his own agencies)
... Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained . But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. (this strongly implies that Hussein was responsible for 9/11)
The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country...
Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make . (this is very true and the reason why waging war should not be done lightly)
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2003. Terms & Conditions of reading.
Commercial information. Privacy Policy.
[ July 09, 2003, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: ung ]
To quote Bob Dole, Where is the outrage?
Gotta love this one:
Asked for the first time about the uranium issue, Bush said, "There's going to be a lot of attempts to rewrite history
Asked for the first time about the uranium issue, Bush said, "There's going to be a lot of attempts to rewrite history
CBS has the following headline on their website: Bush Knew Iraq Info Was False
Also from another website: Clinton Lied, Hillary Cried.
Bush Lied, People Died.
QUOTE
Senior administration officials tell CBS News the President’s mistaken claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa was included in his State of the Union address -- despite objections from the CIA.
The link is here. Also from another website: Clinton Lied, Hillary Cried.
Bush Lied, People Died.
Yet this a.m. on Yahoo, there is a link to an article in which Rice states the CIA approved Bush's reference to uranium...further, the cover of two newspapers at my coffee shop this a.m. featured headlines about Powell blasting Bush critics.
I feel totally burnt out and shut down about this issue. It's hard to resist and withstand the apathy and alienation I feel...
The Yahoo story on Rice and the CIA:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...id=544&ncid=716
I feel totally burnt out and shut down about this issue. It's hard to resist and withstand the apathy and alienation I feel...
The Yahoo story on Rice and the CIA:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...id=544&ncid=716
CBS is now backing off a bit. Their new headline is: Bush Knew Iraq Info Was Dubious
I could not agree more with p2insdca, where is the outrage? While I think it is growing, I still see a lot of apathy.
I keep wondering what the Republicans would do if the shoe was on the other foot? Let's suppose, for a moment, that those 3,000 or so confused, old Jewish voters in Palm Beach who voted for Buchanan (I'm sorry, they were actually at the vanguard of the "Jews for Buchanon" movement) figured out the infamous Butterfly ballot and voted for Gore instead (I know, it's a stretch, but work with me for a moment). So Al is President and we go to war with Iraq and now it comes out that he lied in his State of the Union address. The conservative talk shows would be burning up the phone lines and we would certainly have a Special Prosecutor in place, spending millions investigating this. Since Clinton was impeached for lying about getting a blow job, lying to provide a basis to go to war has to exceed that threshold, doesn't it? Where's Bob Barr when we need him?
[ July 13, 2003, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: Rob ]
I keep wondering what the Republicans would do if the shoe was on the other foot? Let's suppose, for a moment, that those 3,000 or so confused, old Jewish voters in Palm Beach who voted for Buchanan (I'm sorry, they were actually at the vanguard of the "Jews for Buchanon" movement) figured out the infamous Butterfly ballot and voted for Gore instead (I know, it's a stretch, but work with me for a moment). So Al is President and we go to war with Iraq and now it comes out that he lied in his State of the Union address. The conservative talk shows would be burning up the phone lines and we would certainly have a Special Prosecutor in place, spending millions investigating this. Since Clinton was impeached for lying about getting a blow job, lying to provide a basis to go to war has to exceed that threshold, doesn't it? Where's Bob Barr when we need him?
[ July 13, 2003, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: Rob ]
I'm sure PhillyFan is outraged. But alas, he's in Vegas with Bill Bennett as we speak. 
I am TOTALLY dumbfounded as well at the prospect of what if the shoe were on the other foot in this case. Ken Starr would be right there baby!!!
But alas, he's in Vegas with Bill Bennett as we speak. I am TOTALLY dumbfounded as well at the prospect of what if the shoe were on the other foot in this case. Ken Starr would be right there baby!!!
It seems that Tenet will play the good soldier and fall on the sword for his leader.
as his aides have pronounced this past weekend, they consider this matter "closed".
I know I will do my damndest to make sure this is
not the end.
First of all, they keep saying they made a mistake with "those 16 words". The problem is that it was not just "16 words". as seen in previous posts, it was a months long deliberate campaign to put the word out there that Iraq had nuclear weapons it would use with Al-Qaeda. also the body of the State of the Union deals with nukes and Iraq over and over again.
Rice, Rumsfeld etc were assigned desk duty this weekend to give the agreed upon answers on the sunday talk shows. They blamed the slip to an oversight and a "just gosh darn it forgot to check everything" moment.
This is an administration that absolutely totally controls everything that comes out of there. So much so that while in Africa, when the president of the host nation took more than the unspoken 2 questions limit, W.Bush admonished the president in the guy's own country "that's not the way we do it..."
This is the administration that goes over every single thing with a fine tooth comb including the exact camera angle from which he can be photographed.
THIS administration is sayig they forgot to fact-check on something like the State of The Union Address? Come on!!!!
as his aides have pronounced this past weekend, they consider this matter "closed".
I know I will do my damndest to make sure this is
not the end.
First of all, they keep saying they made a mistake with "those 16 words". The problem is that it was not just "16 words". as seen in previous posts, it was a months long deliberate campaign to put the word out there that Iraq had nuclear weapons it would use with Al-Qaeda. also the body of the State of the Union deals with nukes and Iraq over and over again.
Rice, Rumsfeld etc were assigned desk duty this weekend to give the agreed upon answers on the sunday talk shows. They blamed the slip to an oversight and a "just gosh darn it forgot to check everything" moment.
This is an administration that absolutely totally controls everything that comes out of there. So much so that while in Africa, when the president of the host nation took more than the unspoken 2 questions limit, W.Bush admonished the president in the guy's own country "that's not the way we do it..."
This is the administration that goes over every single thing with a fine tooth comb including the exact camera angle from which he can be photographed.
THIS administration is sayig they forgot to fact-check on something like the State of The Union Address? Come on!!!!
Colin Powell has lost considerable credibility on this issue IMO even if he did choose to leave the African uranium out of his UN presentation.
George Bush has hidden behind Powell, then Rice and now Tenet on the subject of WOMD info. Eventually he will have to come out and take the heat.
One person we never hear from is Dick Cheney. One NY Times columnist asked what his role in this has been and suggested it might be critical.
George Bush has hidden behind Powell, then Rice and now Tenet on the subject of WOMD info. Eventually he will have to come out and take the heat.
One person we never hear from is Dick Cheney. One NY Times columnist asked what his role in this has been and suggested it might be critical.
Colin Powell lost credibility when he chose to stay in this administration rather than leave it as he should have done months ago. His moronic UN speech has proved to be the Mt. Washington of falsehoods many said it was the day he uttered it.
He claimed to have satellite surveillance of all those weapons installations, so where are they?
He brandished drawings of those "bioweapons" trailers that the British now say were for hydrogen production and which even the CIA now doubt were for bioweapons.
He cited and babbled on about intercepted conversations that linked Al Qaeda and Saddam, but none of these supposed convos have ever borne out, and no credible links have surfaced.
Nothing about it was credible EXCEPT for the messenger, and he's now totally tainted by association with this pack of liars. What exactly have they told the truth about?
And to think, I would actually have voted for this man for president at one point, particularly if he was running against the likes of a Joe Lieberman.
Condoleezza has shown herself to be so full of untruths that she could easily step into her desired role as a commissioner of any of the major professional sports leagues. She certainly wouldn't be any worse than Selig, Tagliabue or Bettman.
[ July 14, 2003, 08:44 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
He claimed to have satellite surveillance of all those weapons installations, so where are they?
He brandished drawings of those "bioweapons" trailers that the British now say were for hydrogen production and which even the CIA now doubt were for bioweapons.
He cited and babbled on about intercepted conversations that linked Al Qaeda and Saddam, but none of these supposed convos have ever borne out, and no credible links have surfaced.
Nothing about it was credible EXCEPT for the messenger, and he's now totally tainted by association with this pack of liars. What exactly have they told the truth about?
And to think, I would actually have voted for this man for president at one point, particularly if he was running against the likes of a Joe Lieberman.
Condoleezza has shown herself to be so full of untruths that she could easily step into her desired role as a commissioner of any of the major professional sports leagues. She certainly wouldn't be any worse than Selig, Tagliabue or Bettman.
[ July 14, 2003, 08:44 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
QUOTE
She certainly wouldn't be any worse than Selig, Tagliabue or Bettman.
As a Dallas Mavs fan, I must point out that you left out Stern.
Tenet is now testifying before the senate intelligence committee. Many in the administration wanted to get rid of this Democratic hold-over for someone whose loyalty would be unquestioned.
Does anyone think something will come out of the testimony?
as far as the re-appraisals of Powell and Rice goes.... (and I'll warn you guys. This comment may offend a lot of you. But I think guys like Fantomas and other black members will understand)
The thing that keeps coming back to me are the initials H.N.C. or the old delineation that existed between "house niggers" and "field niggers". (I probably offended many of you guys. But it's not coming from a racist perspective)
Powell and Rice who used to be universally admired (especially in the black community) have lost a lot of respect and possible presidential support for Powell by their slavish and zealous tow of the administration line.
As Fantomas points out, he now regrets his willingness to vote for Powell.
There are still many things to admire and respect about both Rice and Powell. But this war campaign has smeared them both.
But again.. we'll have to see what comes out (if anything at all) from the investigations.
Does anyone think something will come out of the testimony?
as far as the re-appraisals of Powell and Rice goes.... (and I'll warn you guys. This comment may offend a lot of you. But I think guys like Fantomas and other black members will understand)
The thing that keeps coming back to me are the initials H.N.C. or the old delineation that existed between "house niggers" and "field niggers". (I probably offended many of you guys. But it's not coming from a racist perspective)
Powell and Rice who used to be universally admired (especially in the black community) have lost a lot of respect and possible presidential support for Powell by their slavish and zealous tow of the administration line.
As Fantomas points out, he now regrets his willingness to vote for Powell.
There are still many things to admire and respect about both Rice and Powell. But this war campaign has smeared them both.
But again.. we'll have to see what comes out (if anything at all) from the investigations.
This is what Michael Kinsley of The Wash Post had to say....
An interesting point comes from this. Why has no one in the White House (since the discovery of the forgery in March) tried to find out who was responsible for the forgery? Would that not be a logical thing for a CEO to demand after being told his report at the stock holders' meeting was based on fabrications?
QUOTE
By Michael Kinsley
Wednesday, July 16, 2003; Page A23
Once again a mysterious criminal stalks the nation's capital. First there was the mystery sniper. Then there was the mystery arsonist. Now there is the mystery ventriloquist. The media are in a frenzy of speculation and leakage. Senators are calling for hearings. All of Washington demands an answer: Who was the arch-fiend who told a lie in President Bush's State of the Union speech? No investigation has plumbed such depths of the unknown since O.J. Simpson's hunt for the real killer of his ex-wife. Whodunit? Was it Colonel Mustard in the kitchen with a candlestick? Condoleezza Rice in the Situation Room with a bottle of Wite-Out and a felt-tipped pen?
Linguists note that the question \"Who lied in George Bush's State of the Union speech\" bears a certain resemblance to the famous conundrum \"Who is buried in Grant's Tomb?\"
link to full article Wednesday, July 16, 2003; Page A23
Once again a mysterious criminal stalks the nation's capital. First there was the mystery sniper. Then there was the mystery arsonist. Now there is the mystery ventriloquist. The media are in a frenzy of speculation and leakage. Senators are calling for hearings. All of Washington demands an answer: Who was the arch-fiend who told a lie in President Bush's State of the Union speech? No investigation has plumbed such depths of the unknown since O.J. Simpson's hunt for the real killer of his ex-wife. Whodunit? Was it Colonel Mustard in the kitchen with a candlestick? Condoleezza Rice in the Situation Room with a bottle of Wite-Out and a felt-tipped pen?
Linguists note that the question \"Who lied in George Bush's State of the Union speech\" bears a certain resemblance to the famous conundrum \"Who is buried in Grant's Tomb?\"
An interesting point comes from this. Why has no one in the White House (since the discovery of the forgery in March) tried to find out who was responsible for the forgery? Would that not be a logical thing for a CEO to demand after being told his report at the stock holders' meeting was based on fabrications?
Tenet testifies in closed session. Even Senator Pat Roberts ®-Kansas is calling for further inquiry.
Senate Appropriations Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, described the proposal as "an attempt to smear the president of the United States."
The White House, it seems, has been doing a good job of it themselves.
[ July 17, 2003, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: ung ]
Senate Appropriations Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, described the proposal as "an attempt to smear the president of the United States."
The White House, it seems, has been doing a good job of it themselves.
QUOTE
Earlier this week, a prominent politician went on national television raising questions about the Bush administration's policy in Iraq.
Here are parts of what he said:
\"Did, in fact, individuals high up in the administration shape and mold this analysis of intelligence to serve their own purposes? I don't know. . . . We need to get the facts out, because this is in the interests of this administration. There's a cloud hanging over this administration.\"
He continued: \"We can't shoulder this burden alone. We are stretched so thin in so many areas that we just can't carry it. That's why we need the United Nations. We need NATO. We need our friends in this. It's serious. We didn't think through this very well before we got into it and we're now dealing with the consequences of not thinking through this.\"
Who was this politician? Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.)? Dean perhaps?
No, it was Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) recipient of two Purple Hearts earned during his tour in Vietnam.
Hagel is known for his independent streak, particular on issues of foreign policy, where he occasionally breaks with his party. But he is neither a lefty nor a renegade, voting with his party nearly 95 percent of the time and earning strong ratings from conservative groups.
Here are parts of what he said:
\"Did, in fact, individuals high up in the administration shape and mold this analysis of intelligence to serve their own purposes? I don't know. . . . We need to get the facts out, because this is in the interests of this administration. There's a cloud hanging over this administration.\"
He continued: \"We can't shoulder this burden alone. We are stretched so thin in so many areas that we just can't carry it. That's why we need the United Nations. We need NATO. We need our friends in this. It's serious. We didn't think through this very well before we got into it and we're now dealing with the consequences of not thinking through this.\"
Who was this politician? Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.)? Dean perhaps?
No, it was Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) recipient of two Purple Hearts earned during his tour in Vietnam.
Hagel is known for his independent streak, particular on issues of foreign policy, where he occasionally breaks with his party. But he is neither a lefty nor a renegade, voting with his party nearly 95 percent of the time and earning strong ratings from conservative groups.
[ July 17, 2003, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: ung ]
I've been thinking - a dangerous pastime, I know...
If you believe the anti-war claims are all true - Bush lied, manipulated intelligence in order to send out troops to war, the war itself was immoral, illegal, unjust, etc., Saddam did not pose and imminent threat to America, didn't have/never had weapons of mass destruction, etc. - then logically you must believe that Saddam Hussein should be returned to power in Iraq.
It's the only fair resolution to this situation.
If you believe he was removed from power illegally, unjustly, immorally, etc, based on false intelligence and outright lies, then it only makes sense to believe that, in fairness, Saddam Hussein should return to power in Iraq.
Would Saddam be more of a threat now, having been provoked by a dishonest, unscrupulous and unelected president? Doesn't matter. That's our problem, not Saddams.
Would the Iraqi people face increased persecution after their celebration of the downed statues, etc.? Again, doesn't matter. The response to Saddam's illegal, immoral, b-b-b removal from power does not lessen the unfairness of that removal, or the need to right that wrong.
Does opposing the war make one a Saddam sympathizer? Not necessarily. But you can believe that he should not be in power and still believe the means by which he was removed from power are unfair, immoral, illegal, y-y-y, and thus his removal from power should be reversed, and the removal should be attempted through diplomatic means.
Again, if you opposed this war, if you believe Bush to be a liar, crook, b-b-b, and if you have any sense of fairness, you really must believe that Saddam should be returned to power. You musn't necessarily believe Saddam is a good guy, just that he should be returned to power.
If you believe the anti-war claims are all true - Bush lied, manipulated intelligence in order to send out troops to war, the war itself was immoral, illegal, unjust, etc., Saddam did not pose and imminent threat to America, didn't have/never had weapons of mass destruction, etc. - then logically you must believe that Saddam Hussein should be returned to power in Iraq.
It's the only fair resolution to this situation.
If you believe he was removed from power illegally, unjustly, immorally, etc, based on false intelligence and outright lies, then it only makes sense to believe that, in fairness, Saddam Hussein should return to power in Iraq.
Would Saddam be more of a threat now, having been provoked by a dishonest, unscrupulous and unelected president? Doesn't matter. That's our problem, not Saddams.
Would the Iraqi people face increased persecution after their celebration of the downed statues, etc.? Again, doesn't matter. The response to Saddam's illegal, immoral, b-b-b removal from power does not lessen the unfairness of that removal, or the need to right that wrong.
Does opposing the war make one a Saddam sympathizer? Not necessarily. But you can believe that he should not be in power and still believe the means by which he was removed from power are unfair, immoral, illegal, y-y-y, and thus his removal from power should be reversed, and the removal should be attempted through diplomatic means.
Again, if you opposed this war, if you believe Bush to be a liar, crook, b-b-b, and if you have any sense of fairness, you really must believe that Saddam should be returned to power. You musn't necessarily believe Saddam is a good guy, just that he should be returned to power.
QUOTE
If you believe the anti-war claims are all true - Bush lied, manipulated intelligence in order to send out troops to war, the war itself was immoral, illegal, unjust, etc., Saddam did not pose and imminent threat to America, didn't have/never had weapons of mass destruction, etc. - then logically you must believe that Saddam Hussein should be returned to power in Iraq.
It's the only fair resolution to this situation.
If you believe he was removed from power illegally, unjustly, immorally, etc, based on false intelligence and outright lies, then it only makes sense to believe that, in fairness, Saddam Hussein should return to power in Iraq.
William1865: as many other people have pointed out, those of us against the war are not pro-Saddam, and I do believe in the long run that Iraq should be better off without Saddam in power - all people who live under tyranny would be better if the tyrant were not in power.It's the only fair resolution to this situation.
If you believe he was removed from power illegally, unjustly, immorally, etc, based on false intelligence and outright lies, then it only makes sense to believe that, in fairness, Saddam Hussein should return to power in Iraq.
But the United States cannot physically or ethically go into every country where we believe the leader is a tyrant and take them out. Didn't we hear all during the 90s about how American couldn't police the world? More importantly, America and the rest of the civilized world hold national borders in pretty high esteem - one must pass a high bar before violating the sovereignty of a nation and invading.
The Bush administration made the argument that we had to invade because Iraq was such an imminent danger. If the data that "proved" he was an imminent danger was wrong, or falsified, or over-blown, that is a serious situation. If the administration deliberately used false, or misinterpreted or simply incorrect intelligence to justify a violation of national policy against attacking other nations, then that is a criminal offense.
Do I believe that the UN would have eventually taken Saddam out? Certainly. Do I think the Iraqi people are better off without him - that's debatable, but only because the Administration did not give enough thought to planning the peace. My point, and the point of most anti-war people, is that we attacked the wrong country at the wrong time for the wrong reasons.
QUOTE
CPT_Doom:
William1865: as many other people have pointed out, those of us against the war are not pro-Saddam...
My point, and the point of most anti-war people, is that we attacked the wrong country at the wrong time for the wrong reasons.
Exactly, which is why I took pains to point out - and I am very sincere about this - that I was not suggesting anti-war people were, in fact, pro-Saddam. Many are unintentionally, but I don't think most are. My point is that, if the war was illegitimate, immoral, unjustified or wrong, then the outcome was necessarily wrong, and can be corrected. Then we could use the means you suggest - UN pressure, internal revolt - to bring about a valid, legitimate regime change.
William1865: as many other people have pointed out, those of us against the war are not pro-Saddam...
My point, and the point of most anti-war people, is that we attacked the wrong country at the wrong time for the wrong reasons.
William, what's done is done, and when we did attack I was one of the first to say that once we were there, we had an obligation to finish the job. I still believe that.
One does not have to be pro-Saddam, even indirectly, that the decision to invade Iraq was based on wrong thinking, bad intelligence, and an overall drive on the part of the Administration to have the war, no matter what the costs. The decision to take such a drastic step is perhaps the most important of any leader, and if we assume the Administration made the case for war knowing that its intelligence was wrong or exaggerated, the automatic way to atone for this "sin" is not necessarily to restore Iraq to its pre-war setup, even if that were possible.
What we will never know is whether the Administration could have made the case for war based solely on what we do know as facts - that Saddam was a tyrant, that we should have taken him out in 1991, that down the road, particularly without inspections, he likely would have recreated his WMD program and used WMDs again. They chose not to do so, and it is their actions, not Saddams, that are now in question.
One does not have to be pro-Saddam, even indirectly, that the decision to invade Iraq was based on wrong thinking, bad intelligence, and an overall drive on the part of the Administration to have the war, no matter what the costs. The decision to take such a drastic step is perhaps the most important of any leader, and if we assume the Administration made the case for war knowing that its intelligence was wrong or exaggerated, the automatic way to atone for this "sin" is not necessarily to restore Iraq to its pre-war setup, even if that were possible.
What we will never know is whether the Administration could have made the case for war based solely on what we do know as facts - that Saddam was a tyrant, that we should have taken him out in 1991, that down the road, particularly without inspections, he likely would have recreated his WMD program and used WMDs again. They chose not to do so, and it is their actions, not Saddams, that are now in question.
Here's a good Charles Krauthammer column on this ridiculous Niger issue (for what it's worth, I was pro-war, so to speak, and I had completely forgotten that Niger even existed, much less that it was mentioned in any way regarding the invasion of Iraq. You would think the Niger thing was the only reason ever given for doing anything in Iraq. Whatever.).
Krauthammer, or however your spell his last name
From the column:
"It is obvious [Bush took action against Iraq] because he thought that, post-Sept. 11, it was vital to the security of the United States that Saddam be disarmed and deposed.
Under what analysis? That Iraq posed a clear and imminent danger, a claim now being discounted by the critics because of the absence thus far of weapons of mass destruction?
No. That was not the president's case. It was, on occasion, Tony Blair's, and that is why Blair is in such political trouble in Britain. But in Bush's first post-9/11 State of the Union address (January 2002), he framed Iraq as a part of a larger and more enduring problem, the overriding threat of our time: the conjunction of terrorism, terrorist states and weapons of mass destruction. And that unless something was done, we faced the prospect of an infinitely more catastrophic 9/11 in the future.
Later that year, in a speech to the U.N., he spoke of the danger from Iraq not as ``clear and present'' but ``grave and gathering,'' an obvious allusion to Churchill's ``gathering storm,'' the gradually accumulating threat that preceded the Nazi invasion of Poland in 1939. And then nearer the war, in his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush plainly denied that the threat was imminent. ``Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent.'' Bush was, on the contrary, calling for action precisely when the threat was not imminent because, ``If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions ... would come too late.''
The threat had not yet even fully emerged, Bush was asserting, but nonetheless it had to be faced because it would only get worse...
In fact, Bush's case was simply a more elaborate and formal restatement of Bill Clinton's argument in 1998 that, left unmolested, Saddam would ``go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal.''
That was true when Clinton said it. It was true when Bush said it. The difference is that Bush did something about it."
[ July 18, 2003, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: William1865 ]
Krauthammer, or however your spell his last name
From the column:
"It is obvious [Bush took action against Iraq] because he thought that, post-Sept. 11, it was vital to the security of the United States that Saddam be disarmed and deposed.
Under what analysis? That Iraq posed a clear and imminent danger, a claim now being discounted by the critics because of the absence thus far of weapons of mass destruction?
No. That was not the president's case. It was, on occasion, Tony Blair's, and that is why Blair is in such political trouble in Britain. But in Bush's first post-9/11 State of the Union address (January 2002), he framed Iraq as a part of a larger and more enduring problem, the overriding threat of our time: the conjunction of terrorism, terrorist states and weapons of mass destruction. And that unless something was done, we faced the prospect of an infinitely more catastrophic 9/11 in the future.
Later that year, in a speech to the U.N., he spoke of the danger from Iraq not as ``clear and present'' but ``grave and gathering,'' an obvious allusion to Churchill's ``gathering storm,'' the gradually accumulating threat that preceded the Nazi invasion of Poland in 1939. And then nearer the war, in his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush plainly denied that the threat was imminent. ``Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent.'' Bush was, on the contrary, calling for action precisely when the threat was not imminent because, ``If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions ... would come too late.''
The threat had not yet even fully emerged, Bush was asserting, but nonetheless it had to be faced because it would only get worse...
In fact, Bush's case was simply a more elaborate and formal restatement of Bill Clinton's argument in 1998 that, left unmolested, Saddam would ``go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal.''
That was true when Clinton said it. It was true when Bush said it. The difference is that Bush did something about it."
[ July 18, 2003, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: William1865 ]
Before we get too bogged down in the red herring that William presents to us. (by the way, this is the same red herring that Phillyfan and the administration have been spinning for months)
as already refuted, those of us who opposed the war are not necessarily pro-Saddam.
Let it also be noted that I was Pro-war. I never said that Saddam should stay in power.
No matter the political affiliation and persuasion within the american political framework, I believe that we ALL see Saddam's removal as a good thing. So again... to dispel that particular red herring, that's not what's up for debate. NO ONE is advocating Saddam's return to power.
And to the other red herring that states Niger and the whole nuclear issue is a "ridiculous" and miniscule point of no consequence... Let me again point out that what is being deemed "inconsequential" and "ridiculous" now by the WhiteHouse was deemed important enough to mention and hammer in sound bite after sound bite and speech after speech. Most notably in the State of the Union.
Are we perhaps suggesting that the President's Address to the Nation is of no consequence?
So then, to those of us who supported the war, why the outrage? It is not outrage against the fall of Saddam. The outrage is on the "process" that was used to get us from Point A to Point B.
In between those points in time, there were many available options. The outrage is based on what is looking like (at the worst case) deceit from the WhiteHouse to get the country to agree to war or (in the best case) incompetent bumbling and miscommunication involving the most difficult decision a President can make, war.
If there is nothing to hide, there's nothing to hide. Did not W.Bush campaign against deceit, double talk, lies and dishonour in the Oval Office of Clinton? Did he not promise us a change?
So then.. why all the shell game and double talk from the administration now? It has gottento a level now that even Bob Dornan and many other conservatives are troubled by it.
as already refuted, those of us who opposed the war are not necessarily pro-Saddam.
Let it also be noted that I was Pro-war. I never said that Saddam should stay in power.
No matter the political affiliation and persuasion within the american political framework, I believe that we ALL see Saddam's removal as a good thing. So again... to dispel that particular red herring, that's not what's up for debate. NO ONE is advocating Saddam's return to power.
And to the other red herring that states Niger and the whole nuclear issue is a "ridiculous" and miniscule point of no consequence... Let me again point out that what is being deemed "inconsequential" and "ridiculous" now by the WhiteHouse was deemed important enough to mention and hammer in sound bite after sound bite and speech after speech. Most notably in the State of the Union.
Are we perhaps suggesting that the President's Address to the Nation is of no consequence?
So then, to those of us who supported the war, why the outrage? It is not outrage against the fall of Saddam. The outrage is on the "process" that was used to get us from Point A to Point B.
In between those points in time, there were many available options. The outrage is based on what is looking like (at the worst case) deceit from the WhiteHouse to get the country to agree to war or (in the best case) incompetent bumbling and miscommunication involving the most difficult decision a President can make, war.
If there is nothing to hide, there's nothing to hide. Did not W.Bush campaign against deceit, double talk, lies and dishonour in the Oval Office of Clinton? Did he not promise us a change?
So then.. why all the shell game and double talk from the administration now? It has gottento a level now that even Bob Dornan and many other conservatives are troubled by it.
There are so many holes in this. If it was just a mistake on Niger once, he might have a point, but...as Ung has said, Bush repeated it a number of times. How can you possibly claim not to remember this and other evidence of Iraq's nuclear program (also revealed as bogus)?
QUOTE
he framed Iraq as a part of a larger and more enduring problem, the overriding threat of our time: the conjunction of terrorism, terrorist states and weapons of mass destruction.
He has failed to come up with significant evidence of these in Iraq either.QUOTE
In fact, Bush's case was simply a more elaborate and formal restatement of Bill Clinton's argument in 1998 that, left unmolested, Saddam would ``go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal.''
Even if that were true five years ago (and I'm not saying it was), he did not go unmolested. When Clinton said that, I believe Iraq had kicked the arms inspectors out. And if you don't consider that "molestation", then it was false when Clinton said it, because obviously Saddam did not rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. Five years should have been plenty of time to do so. My guess is that Saddam's fiscal resources were stretched enough trying to fight a civil war with conventional arms, and he simply couldn't afford to put sufficient funds together for a serious chemical or biological weapons program, let alone a nuclear one.
A former British Weapons inspector, who by the way said that the Niger connection was a hoax, was found dead yesterday in the UK. Autopsy will be performed Saturday.
1) Since when is Bob Dornan a bellweather of conservative thought? The guys a whackjob.
2) Duh. Of course the SOTU is consequential. At the beginning of the SOTU I think he says something to the effect that he's glad members of Congress are there, thanking them for being there, etc. Is that consequential? In the scheme of things, does it really matter how grateful the President is to everyone in attendance? Of course not, but that doesn't mean the speech as a whole is inconsequential.
Moreover, to say the Niger reference was minor is not to say it was inconsequential. Britain still stands behind it, last I heard. It was one of many items suggesting that Saddam Hussein was a growing threat to America's and the world's security. And what Bush said is that British intelligence had learned bbb. He did not say "We know for a fact that bbb." The point was that there was so much evidence of Saddam's evil, so many reports of his plans, that to wait until he was ready to nuke us all would be insane.
3) Most of the people who are bitching about President Bush taking this Niger thing too seriously are the same people bitching that President Bush didn't single-handedly stop the 9/11 attacks based on vague intelligence reports of possible attacks of some kind, at some point, somewhere, somehow. Either intelligence gathering is a risky, confusing and often frustrating endeavor or its not. You can't have it both ways.
4) I will say this again, very slowly: I am not suggesting that people who oppose the war are pro-Saddam. I am saying that, if you think the war itself was immoral, unjust or unfair, you must logically think that it's outcome shares those same flaws, regardless of your feelings toward Saddam, whom - I want to be clear about this - I assume all of you hate like the plague. Just to be clear: I'm not saying anyone here is actively pro-Saddam. Am I clear on that? Hope so.
2) Duh. Of course the SOTU is consequential. At the beginning of the SOTU I think he says something to the effect that he's glad members of Congress are there, thanking them for being there, etc. Is that consequential? In the scheme of things, does it really matter how grateful the President is to everyone in attendance? Of course not, but that doesn't mean the speech as a whole is inconsequential.
Moreover, to say the Niger reference was minor is not to say it was inconsequential. Britain still stands behind it, last I heard. It was one of many items suggesting that Saddam Hussein was a growing threat to America's and the world's security. And what Bush said is that British intelligence had learned bbb. He did not say "We know for a fact that bbb." The point was that there was so much evidence of Saddam's evil, so many reports of his plans, that to wait until he was ready to nuke us all would be insane.
3) Most of the people who are bitching about President Bush taking this Niger thing too seriously are the same people bitching that President Bush didn't single-handedly stop the 9/11 attacks based on vague intelligence reports of possible attacks of some kind, at some point, somewhere, somehow. Either intelligence gathering is a risky, confusing and often frustrating endeavor or its not. You can't have it both ways.
4) I will say this again, very slowly: I am not suggesting that people who oppose the war are pro-Saddam. I am saying that, if you think the war itself was immoral, unjust or unfair, you must logically think that it's outcome shares those same flaws, regardless of your feelings toward Saddam, whom - I want to be clear about this - I assume all of you hate like the plague. Just to be clear: I'm not saying anyone here is actively pro-Saddam. Am I clear on that? Hope so.
So William, let's suppose I told a friend "I don't think you should marry that woman". He goes ahead and does it anyway and has several kids with her. By your argument, since I thought the original marriage was a mistake, he should try and erase its consequences--ie. divorce his wife and murder his children.
and I will say this again. E-X-T-R-E-M-E-L-Y slowly. No one has a moral problem with the fall of Saddam Hussein. we have a problem of what facts were presented to the country to convince us to wage a unilateral pre-emptive war.
I again refer to Condolesszza Rice saying "we don't want the smoking gun (of Iraq's arsenal) to be a mushroom cloud (meaning nukes)"
on to another point.
To wit, When one refers to another and says \"they have learned...\" the implication is NOT \"they learned this but it may not be true.\" The understood meaning is \"They found this out and so we need to heed this reliable info.\"
Read the state of the union speech in its entirety. The whole speech is concerning Iraq's nuclear danger and how it is a danger to the US. If you don't wanna read the entire speech, see my earlier post. This was not a non sequitur nor a throw away line. This was carefully designed and written (as are all presidential speeches) to scare the country with the idea of iraqi nukes.
Here's how the article addressed Williams second point about what was said re'The brits have learned....\"
[ July 18, 2003, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: ung ]
I again refer to Condolesszza Rice saying "we don't want the smoking gun (of Iraq's arsenal) to be a mushroom cloud (meaning nukes)"
on to another point.
QUOTE
what Bush said is that British intelligence had learned bbb. He did not say \"We know for a fact that bbb.\"
This attempt to split hairs has already been addressed and debunked by far better writers than me. (see Wash Post)To wit, When one refers to another and says \"they have learned...\" the implication is NOT \"they learned this but it may not be true.\" The understood meaning is \"They found this out and so we need to heed this reliable info.\"
Read the state of the union speech in its entirety. The whole speech is concerning Iraq's nuclear danger and how it is a danger to the US. If you don't wanna read the entire speech, see my earlier post. This was not a non sequitur nor a throw away line. This was carefully designed and written (as are all presidential speeches) to scare the country with the idea of iraqi nukes.
Here's how the article addressed Williams second point about what was said re'The brits have learned....\"
QUOTE
1) Bushies fanned out to the weekend talk shows to note, as if with one voice, that what Bush said was technically accurate. But it was not accurate, even technically. The words in question were: \"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.\" Bush didn't say it was true, you see -- he just said the Brits said it. This is a contemptible argument in any event. But to descend to the administration's level of nitpicking, the argument simply doesn't work. Bush didn't say that the Brits \"said\" this Africa business -- he said they \"learned\" it. The difference between \"said\" and \"learned\" is that \"learned\" clearly means there is some preexisting basis for believing whatever-it-is, apart from the fact that someone said it. Is it theoretically possible to \"learn\" something that is not true? I'm not sure. But it certainly is not possible to say that someone has \"learned\" a piece of information without clearly intending to imply that you, the speaker, wish the listener to accept it as true. Bush expressed no skepticism or doubt, even though the Brits qualification was added as protection only because doubts had been expressed internally.
Will George W. Bush next ask us to define what the meaning of the word "Is" is?[ July 18, 2003, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: ung ]
QUOTE
JC:
So William, let's suppose I told a friend \"I don't think you should marry that woman\". He goes ahead and does it anyway and has several kids with her. By your argument, since I thought the original marriage was a mistake, he should try and erase its consequences--ie. divorce his wife and murder his children.
Bluebird? Is that you? So William, let's suppose I told a friend \"I don't think you should marry that woman\". He goes ahead and does it anyway and has several kids with her. By your argument, since I thought the original marriage was a mistake, he should try and erase its consequences--ie. divorce his wife and murder his children.
At any rate...no, I am opposed to both divorce and murder, one perhaps more than the other.
If you felt the original marriage was a mistake, and then you later found evidence to confirm your view, or you found out that the woman had duped your friend into getting married, then I think that logically, you should want the couple to be divorced, since you would pretty much have to believe that would be in your friend's best interest. As far as the kids - a tragic swingset accident, perhaps? Who knows...
You know... back in 1998 a certain person trying to deflect attention for something else... blew up a factory in the sudan... based on false information, bad information...
http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin.asp
That was a separate attack on a nation (not Iraq, but was somehow implicated by the admin). Yet, these same hawks who are screaming now of bloody foul were in full support of the commander in chief making that decision.
http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin.asp
That was a separate attack on a nation (not Iraq, but was somehow implicated by the admin). Yet, these same hawks who are screaming now of bloody foul were in full support of the commander in chief making that decision.
Phillyfan.... what's your point?
and William, your "bluebird, is that you?" comment was hilarious. By the way, I'm glad to see you back in the politics discussions. despite our differing opinions on many things, it's good to have ya.
and William, your "bluebird, is that you?" comment was hilarious. By the way, I'm glad to see you back in the politics discussions. despite our differing opinions on many things, it's good to have ya.
My point is, that on both sides this goes on.
Right now i just see where the dems are fighting on the wording of the speech, looking for some slander. Much the same as the repugs did to clinton. In the end, are both bad intellegence.
Buti ask my self, if Sadaam had a nuke, would he use it? I think we all know the answer to that question.
Right now i just see where the dems are fighting on the wording of the speech, looking for some slander. Much the same as the repugs did to clinton. In the end, are both bad intellegence.
Buti ask my self, if Sadaam had a nuke, would he use it? I think we all know the answer to that question.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.