quote:"must be made to account for the thousands of tons of chemical precursors, the thousands of liters of biological warfare agents, the thousands of missing chemical munitions, the unaccounted-for Scud missiles, and the weaponized VX poison that the United Nations has itself declared missing."
Fine, where is all this stuff at?
We entered a pre-emptive war for alledged national secutity reasons, now the reasons seemed to have vanished into thin air. You say Saddam once had all this stuff, O.K.,but now there seems to be evidence of roughly none of it.
How does that happen?
How does Mr. Bush send Colin Powell to the U.N. and say 'we have to attack Iraq because these trucks we see here are sitting in front of chemical weapons labs and they are getting ready to use them on us. We have to do this now because there is just no telling what a mad man like Saddam will do with these.'
It would appear that the only truth in that statement is that those trucks indeed sitting in front of buildings. You can't put five hundred tons of sarin gas into your closet.
quote:The "moral reason" for the war was that Saddam's regime was an engine of mass destruction and genocide that had killed thousands of his own people, and neighbors, and needed to be stopped.
On to Pyongyang!
quote:But because the Bush team never dared to spell out the real reason for the war, and (wrongly) felt that it could never win public or world support for the right reasons and the moral reasons, it opted for the stated reason: the notion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that posed an immediate threat to America. I argued before the war that Saddam posed no such threat to America, and had no links with Al Qaeda, and that we couldn't take the nation to war "on the wings of a lie." I argued that Mr. Bush should fight this war for the right reasons and the moral reasons. But he stuck with this W.M.D. argument for P.R. reasons.
Yeah, that a great counter argument. The "Bush lied to get his war, but that's O.K." argument. Now that all the lies are starting to come out, all the justification begins.
It really wasn't about WMDs - even though we said it was.
It really wasn't about pre-emption - even though we said it was.
It really wasn't about the security of the United States - even though we said it was.
We just wanted to bring freedom to the Iraqi people, we just had to lie to do it. Wasn't Mr. Bush supposed to bring honesty and integrity back to the White House?
quote:Mr. Bush took the country into his war. And if it turns out that he fabricated the evidence for his war (which I wouldn't conclude yet), that would badly damage America and be a very serious matter.
Friedman got it right in that part.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Imbroglio is the coolest word ever. Anyway, it seems clear that, despite your favored political spin, this is going to be a major, possibly even decisive, issue for the future of both leaders. Well, maybe just Blair. Bush's reelection is, I suspect, already in the bag.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Blair is finished; that much is for sure. I saw the House of Commons thing on the news and thought it was quite hilarious.
Bush should be finished, but knowing that he has many friends on Capitol Hill will probably save him from harm. As for his re-election, yes, it may already be "in the bag."
posted
I can say that in no uncertain terms the Canadian Liberal government will have a phenomenally easier re-election than Bush.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
Don't hold your breath.
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote: Blair is finished; that much is for sure. I saw the House of Commons thing on the news and thought it was quite hilarious.
I wouldn't bet on it. he isn't known as Teflon Tony for nothing. Also the Tories have a serious image problem, mainly due to Thatcher and her policies and the many scandels of the Major government. On the other hand Duncan Smith (despite having a reputation as the world's most boring man) does appear to be moving the Tories away from Thatchism and back towards 'One nation' policies, which is definitely a good thing.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
United Nations Address September 12, 2002
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
Radio Address October 5, 2002
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."
"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States"
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech October 7, 2002
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
State of the Union Address January 28, 2003
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
Address to the Nation March 17, 2003
........
So what are we now to conclude if Bush's statements are found, indeed, to be as grossly inaccurate as they currently appear to have been?
After all, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and given Bush's statements, they should not have been very hard to find - for they existed in large quantities, "thousands of tons" of chemical weapons alone. Moreover, according to the statements, telltale facilities, groups of scientists who could testify, and production equipment also existed.
So where is all that? And how can we reconcile the White House's unequivocal statements with the fact that they may not exist?
There are two main possibilities. One that something is seriously wrong within the Bush White House's national security operations. That seems difficult to believe. The other is that the President has deliberately misled the nation, and the world.
........
.... In the three decades since Watergate, this is the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison. If the Bush Administration intentionally manipulated or misrepresented intelligence to get Congress to authorize, and the public to support, military action to take control of Iraq, then that would be a monstrous misdeed.
As I remarked in an earlier column, this Administration may be due for a scandal. While Bush narrowly escaped being dragged into Enron, which was not, in any event, his doing. But the war in Iraq is all Bush's doing, and it is appropriate that he be held accountable.
To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."
It's important to recall that when Richard Nixon resigned, he was about to be impeached by the House of Representatives for misusing the CIA and FBI. After Watergate, all presidents are on notice that manipulating or misusing any agency of the executive branch improperly is a serious abuse of presidential power.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
LIke I said before, it's good to know that the previous administration was also in on this "lie."
From the 1998 State of the Union address...
quote:Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the missiles to deliver them
From the December 16, 1988 Televised speech regarding strikes on Iraq
quote:"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.
Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.
So we know that the WMD's and facilities existed as late as 1998 - because Clinton would never lie about such a thing. Now, if you're going to tell me that that brief series of attacks, with no sort of inspection immediately afterwards, was sufficient to wipe out all of Iraq's programs, stores, and facilities... I'll try not to laugh.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
You're saying that no one seems to be able to find the WMDs, one of the subtle points of this thread which you never address and the reason Mr. Bush had to invade, but we know they exist in 2003 because Clinton made a speech about it in 1998?
I'm really trying to figure out what Clinton has to do with this and why you keep trying to divert attention from the fact that they haven't found anything by bringing him up.
The very simple point that Mr. Bush invaded Iraq, not Bill Clinton.
The responisbility for that invasion and the reasons stated for it belongs to Mr. Bush and no one else.
If he lied about, mis-used, or infalated intelligence to bring that invasion about, that is a very serious matter.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
It comes down to this: Either both the Clinton and Bush administrations believed Iraq had WMD's or both were blowing smoke up everyone's ass as a justification to use military force whenever expediant. Just because a new administration is in power, it does'nt mean they throw out the carefully made useful plans created by their predacessors: if that really happened, nothing would ever get done. Both are equally likely and neither is an impeachable offense. ALL politicians would be impeached if being caught in a lie was illegal. I'm sure Blair is still using or being used by plans made i the Thatcher era and Bush is sill caught up in things srt into motion by Reagan. No new administration gets a blank slate to start over with.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
This is a remarkable series of events...if our Congress and our courts have any credibility at all, they must hold inquiries and get Bush out of office. And Colin Powell, and the rest of those who misled us. Can you, First of Two, explain why no weapons have been found and why the President lied to us on several occasions about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction. And please do it this time without bringing Clinton up. It seems that every time we mention Bush lying to us, it's "Clinton did, too," and other things. We know Clinton lied a lot. We know he had an affair and wanted to cover it up. But that is not the issue.
The issue is, why were we lied to about Iraq having WMD?
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
It amuses me that whenever Rob screams "Clinton did it too!" at the top of his lungs in response to Bush being criticized, he's committing the exact same "TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE ONE RIGHT!" fallacy he always accuses his opponents of.
posted
Who says there was any lie? "Intelligence" has been far far wrong on many occasions that I'm certain there were credible reports of WMD's coming from Iraq as well as other countries. Filtering what intelligence is accurate and what's dis-information is iffy in the best of circumstances and there's the very real possibility that some of those reports came from the Iraqui military as a deterrent against the US sending in ground troops.
Regardless of what you believe personally, there is no way to prove that any of the information acted upon was fabricated.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged