US Weapons Inspectors: "No WMD in Iraq"

[loki09789]

Let's see why some might believe the threat was 'imminent'....

Do you suppose this language below is designed to convey security and safety?

[/color][/size][/font][/size][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/font][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/font][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/font][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/font][/font][/color][/size][/font][/size][/font]

http://hgrm.ctsg.com/index.asp?start=10&Subject=Urgent+Threat&submit=Search+Database
[/color][/size][/font][/size][/font]
[/color][/size][/font][/size][/font]

The interesting thing to me is how people criticise the POTUS for taking proactive measures in Iraq as "wrong" but also say that the POTUS was "wrong" in the case of 9/11 because no proactive actions were taken.....

The only way to know if unseating SHussein and Sons was a good choice is if they stayed in power and payed into, contributed, sheltered or planned a 9/11 type attack or worse....what kind of judgements on the POTUS would be formed in that case?

 

[Ray]

The interesting thing to me is how people criticise the POTUS for taking proactive measures in Iraq as "wrong" but also say that the POTUS was "wrong" in the case of 9/11 because no proactive actions were taken.....

The only way to know if unseating SHussein and Sons was a good choice is if they stayed in power and payed into, contributed, sheltered or planned a 9/11 type attack or worse....what kind of judgements on the POTUS would be formed in that case?

On March 8, the pres said the following in a radio address:
The attacks of September the 11, 2001 showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terror states could do with weapons of mass destruction. We are determined to confront threats wherever they arise. And, as a last resort, we must be willing to use military force. We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force.

Note the line: We will not wait to see what terrorists or terror states could do with weapons of mass destruction.
and: But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force.

I am sure I recall, in a televised speech, that GWB said he would not wait until Iraq became an imminent threat.

Saddam was given adequate time to stop screwing around and he failed to do so.

The link you included points to a web site that clearly shows a bias. People who feel differently than you can point to material that shows a bias the other way. In any case, you are welcome to your opinion.

 

[PeachMonkey]

The only way to know if unseating SHussein and Sons was a good choice is if they stayed in power and payed into, contributed, sheltered or planned a 9/11 type attack or worse....what kind of judgements on the POTUS would be formed in that case?

By that argument, then, should we unseat every regime that is less than friendly to the United States or other western powers, in case they might concievably someday take part in such an attack?

The two criticims you list differ in that 1) with 9/11, the Bush administration was presented with intelligence about a series of airliner-based attacks by al-Qaeda, and did nothing (though his critics normally fail to describe what he or any other president should have done); 2) with Iraq, the Bush administration wrongly blamed Iraq for having WMD, including pressuring intelligence agencies to highlight evidence they didn't agree with.

Two completely different levels of threat and motive.

 

[PeachMonkey]

But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force.

Of course, as has been pointed out here numerous times, the United Nations had already disarmed his regime, was in the process of determining once again that his regime was disarmed, and he had no WMD to be disarmed from.

The link you included points to a web site that clearly shows a bias. People who feel differently than you can point to material that shows a bias the other way. In any case, you are welcome to your opinion.

The quotes posted were quotes by the administration officials themselves! How can they be biased any less?

 

[loki09789]

By that argument, then, should we unseat every regime that is less than friendly to the United States or other western powers, in case they might concievably someday take part in such an attack?

The two criticims you list differ in that 1) with 9/11, the Bush administration was presented with intelligence about a series of airliner-based attacks by al-Qaeda, and did nothing (though his critics normally fail to describe what he or any other president should have done); 2) with Iraq, the Bush administration wrongly blamed Iraq for having WMD, including pressuring intelligence agencies to highlight evidence they didn't agree with.

Two completely different levels of threat and motive.

Exaggeration. Of course not. And "you should have seen it coming" is so easy to say when hindsight is in effect, as we all know from personal experience. IT wasn't just the Bush Administration - it was the US/NATO and others that were all working from false intelligence about WMD in Iraq - SHussein was doing a good mindscrew on folks, isolating "Bush" as the only dupe is taking it out of context.

Two different levels of threat and motive true, but the fact that, as a leader, your damned if you do and damned if you don't is true. It is always easier to criticize than it is to do it. Anyone who is/has been in a leadership position knows exactly what this experience is like.

While we were in Bos, I was percieved as either "Sgt Hitler" to "Tough" to "Lazy" to "Unfair" to "Professional"....I know I was doing the same thing to other leaders, fairly or unfairly. Funny thing was that when it came time to band together and get the job done none of that mattered and we worked together....something that I don't see happening all that well in the civilian community during this time of war.

 

[Ray]

Of course, as has been pointed out here numerous times, the United Nations had already disarmed his regime, was in the process of determining once again that his regime was disarmed, and he had no WMD to be disarmed from.

Yes, of course Iraq had been disarmed and Saddam let the inspectors in to verify it; and there was not evidence to the contary.

And of course, the UN has shown itself and its associations to be true blue, without any attempt or reason to deceive.

The quotes posted were quotes by the administration officials themselves! How can they be biased any less?

Indeed, how can they be? Review the website, analyze it and the "explanations" given of the quotes; check the original material, read the whole source of the quote and critically think about it. Do the same for opposing views. Also, investigate the intention and bias of the person (or web site) putting forth the material...does it exclude information from the same sources that are different with what he/she believes.

 

[lvwhitebir]

By that argument, then, should we unseat every regime that is less than friendly to the United States or other western powers, in case they might concievably someday take part in such an attack?

We had the right with Iraq because of the first Gulf War and the UN resolution to tell them to disarm. We can't invade just any other country without more reason.

If the UN told Iraq to disarm in 1992 and it's taken until 2005 to show that it had been done then something is wrong. What we did is try to wrap up a potentially dangerous situation, where the '90s were all about appeasing Saddam (who incidentally barred the inspectors from doing their job as much as he could) and using a sit-and-wait policy.

WhiteBirch

 

[lvwhitebir]

The quotes posted were quotes by the administration officials themselves! How can they be biased any less?

Taking quotes out of context and putting your own meaning behind it can't be biased?

WhiteBirch

 

[lvwhitebir]

The interesting thing to me is how people criticise the POTUS for taking proactive measures in Iraq as "wrong" but also say that the POTUS was "wrong" in the case of 9/11 because no proactive actions were taken.....

It kills me that we invade Afganistan and overthrow their government and people think it's ok, but we can't do the same to Iraq. What's the reasoning behind invading Afganistan? They were supposedly harboring 1 person, Bin Laden. What's the reasoning behind invading Iraq? They subverted attempts to disarm them (under UN resolution) for the past 12 years (including keeping the inspectors out for the prevous 4 years) and we had evidence they were hiding/developing WMDs which could end up in the hands of terrorists like Bin Laden.

I applaud that Bush said at the outset it was going to be a long battle and that the public support would probably wane, but that he would stick to his guns regardless. Even under great political pressure he has.

WhiteBirch

 

[Feisty Mouse]

It kills me that we invade Afganistan and overthrow their government and people think it's ok, but we can't do the same to Iraq. What's the reasoning behind invading Afganistan? They were supposedly harboring 1 person, Bin Laden. What's the reasoning behind invading Iraq? They subverted attempts to disarm them (under UN resolution) for the past 12 years (including keeping the inspectors out for the prevous 4 years) and we had evidence they were hiding/developing WMDs which could end up in the hands of terrorists like Bin Laden.

I applaud that Bush said at the outset it was going to be a long battle and that the public support would probably wane, but that he would stick to his guns regardless. Even under great political pressure he has.

WhiteBirch

That "one person", Bin Laden, was connected with the 9/11 attacks - the entire supposed impetus for the USA doing something militarily.

If the above that you mention is out reason for invading Iraq, then why haven't we invaded other countries as well, that we know have "WMD", and that may use them?

The reasoning is either illogical, or there is some *other* reason we invaded.

Of course the public support is waning. Bush declared a victory a while ago, and the body count of US military personnel is rising. And people are questioning the reasons why we (the American people and our armed services, including the National Guard, which is suppossed to be here at home) were led into this quagmire in the first place.

Predicting people won't like his decision doesn't make it a right one. It just means that Bush is determined - which can be for good for for ill.

 

[loki09789]

That "one person", Bin Laden, was connected with the 9/11 attacks - the entire supposed impetus for the USA doing something militarily.

If the above that you mention is out reason for invading Iraq, then why haven't we invaded other countries as well, that we know have "WMD", and that may use them?

The reasoning is either illogical, or there is some *other* reason we invaded.

Of course the public support is waning. Bush declared a victory a while ago, and the body count of US military personnel is rising. And people are questioning the reasons why we (the American people and our armed services, including the National Guard, which is suppossed to be here at home) were led into this quagmire in the first place.

Predicting people won't like his decision doesn't make it a right one. It just means that Bush is determined - which can be for good for for ill.

The spin doctor/PR experts screwed up on that one because it was never just Bin Laden that we were targeting but the entire AlQ network that was running the show in Afg. THey started out calling it the 'hunt for Bin Laden' because it is simpler for the general public to have a single image of the BAD GUY than a network as the common enemy. Later it was better articulated (some say 'changed') as the dismantling of the AlQ network.

The victory that was declared was about the occupation and unseating of the SHussein government. Mission accomplished/success. The post operational activities: Stabilization/Reconstruction missions and such are making it clear that the borders were/are open as a can be and that controlling the key population/industrial centers is only the beginning of actual territorial control.

We live in an instant gratification world and the waning support is nothing new or unexpected - especially when people get depressed as a nation over loss of American lives - they just want it to stop.

But just wanting it to stop is not a good enough motive/reason to pull out - we are there, committed. If we send the message that we quite because it gets tough or that we only do half jobs we look like wimps in the international community, domestic population and we build dissatisfaction in general.

Like I said, Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

[michaeledward]

The interesting thing to me is how people criticise the POTUS for taking proactive measures in Iraq as "wrong" but also say that the POTUS was "wrong" in the case of 9/11 because no proactive actions were taken.....

The only way to know if unseating SHussein and Sons was a good choice is if they stayed in power and payed into, contributed, sheltered or planned a 9/11 type attack or worse....what kind of judgements on the POTUS would be formed in that case?

It has been shown that there was ample evidence of warning concerning Al Qaeda leading up to September 11, 2001.

It has also been shown that there was absence of evidence of a Weapons of Mass Destruction programs (and related activities) in Iraq prior to the Invasion.

There were 'proactive' activities taking place in Iraq prior to the invasion. Inspectors were in the country.

As to unseating Hussein, and whether it was a good choice or not, this remains to be seen. However, the United States has spent more than 200 Billion dollars in that 'unseating', and without knowing the outcome, I think that is a bad investment.

Mike

 

[Flatlander]

After having not commented on this topic for awhile, I have come to a new position. Whether or not the invasion of Iraq was appropriate or not is totally irrelevant. It is done. There is no chance in hell that GWB is going to be tried at the Hague; as difficult as that is to accept, it just won't happen.

The truth is, the global population will begin to look very differently at this once things have calmed down and the United States of Mesopotamia have had a few democratic looking elections to alleviate our collective fears of the Husseinian phoenix rising from the ashes of mythical imminent threats.

50 years down the road, GWB will be a hero, and our great-grandchildren will need new history textbooks.

 

[michaeledward]

Do you think that 50 years ago, they were saying the same thing about Israel and the Palestinians?

 

[PeachMonkey]

If the UN told Iraq to disarm in 1992 and it's taken until 2005 to show that it had been done then something is wrong. What we did is try to wrap up a potentially dangerous situation, where the '90s were all about appeasing Saddam (who incidentally barred the inspectors from doing their job as much as he could) and using a sit-and-wait policy.

The fact that something was wrong with weapons inspections was not the issue; the issue was whether Saddam Hussein's regime has WMD. The previous UN inspectors believed they had destroyed Hussein's WMD program.

Before our recent invasion and occuation, the United Nations was inspecting his program, had not found evidence of a WMD program, and requested more time to complete their investigation. This time was denied them, and the invasion was launched. If Hussein had then proceeded to throw out the inspectors, or continued to prevaricate, then the UN could have acted; if the UN had continued to fail to act, then the US would been justified to act unilaterally. None of these actions were allowed to take place.

As has been demonstrated previously, neoconservatives (many of whom, such as Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld) have been calling for an invasion of Iraq during Bush 1, Clinton, and GW's administrations. The WMD "threat" was merely the pretext for this. Even American intelligence agencies could not agree on the nature of Iraq's intelligence threat; evidence has shown that the Administration's own intelligence agencies did not believe that a threat clearly existed, but that pieces of evidence were "cherry-picked" only to support the case for war.

To answer the questions about website bias earlier, I would have hoped that our discussion opponents would have studied logic and debate, and realized the problems with the ad hominem fallacy. *Every* source of information is biased. We, as intelligent people, can look through that bias and use the facts within to support or refute arguments; if, however, we simply refuse to debate issues because a source is biased, then we are committing the worst kind of intellectual cop-out.

Flatlander's point about the Iraq invasion being a fait accompli is also a cop-out; we have a duty to continue to point out where the Bush Administration lied and distorted the truth (in the worst case) or failed (in the best case) if we as a people are to learn and improve. If we had not gone back to study the mistakes and lies of the Johnson and Nixon administrations, we would never have learned of the lies, manipulations, and horrors of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Watergate.

Why was it "okay" to invade Afghanistan and not Iraq? First, many believe that it *wasn't* okay, for a number of reasons... including that we never declared war on Afghanistan. Those arguments aside, the reasons should be obvious... the Taleban were harboring a group of terrorists that had committed acts of murder and war on American soil, had been given an opportunity to turn them over to justice, and had refused to do so. The United States and its NATO allies felt they had a justification to act.

Iraq had not attacked the United States; had not been proven to have WMDs; inspections were underway again; the sanctions regime punishing Iraq for its previous failure to comply with inspections was, all of its brutal human rights violations aside, depriving Iraq of its ability to develop WMD; the United States did not declare war on Iraq; there was no clear causus belli.

Loki, your point about "tough leadership" is interesting and well-taken, but when tough leaders make catastrophic mistakes, they need to be held accountable for them. Clearly enough Americans disagreed with me to re-elect the guy, but Bush's decisions about Iraq killed over a thousand Americans, tens of thousands of Iraqis, cost us billions and billions of dollars we can't afford, and led to political and military instability that we'll pay for for generations.

What's worse, I think there's plenty of evidence that Bush's "tough leadership" didn't lead to just a bad mistake, but was actually part of a deliberate, misleading campaign that led to a massive, horrendous mistake. That's not just "tough leadership", in my estimation.

 

[ghostdog2]

"There is no chance in hell that GWB is going to be tried at the Hague; as difficult as that is to accept, it just won't happen." Flatlander

You've lost it.


"The truth is, the global population will begin to look very differently at this once things have calmed down and .......50 years down the road, GWB will be a hero.." Flatlander

You got that right. To many, he's already there.


""..there was no clear causus belli..." Peachmonkey

From reading your posts, I get the feeling that there could never be sufficient cause for war. Ann Coulter, bless her heart, says liberals (pardon the label ) are always in favor of the war we are not fighting. Wishing to appear to accept the validity of a "just war" they equivocate until we realize that, to them, there is no such thing. Hmmmmm.

"...if we had not gone back to study the mistakes and lies of the Johnson and Nixon administrations, we would never have learned of the lies, manipulations, and horrors of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Watergate." Peachmonkey again

And bye the bye, what were the "horrors" of Watergate and how can you possibly lump it in with the Kennedy/Johnson Vietnam adventure? I mean, Nixon's name and Watergate are just thrown in there as if everyone knows that an office burglary in Washington and a war in Asia are the same thing... If a Republican burgles a shrink's office, a Democrat's war pales by comparison. Sure.
As to Laos and Cambodia, I'm lost.

 

[rmcrobertson]

...but apparently, compared to the odd blowjob in the copying room, launching an unjustified war based on lies and part-truths about a dictator that we helped put into power pales into insignificance.

It may be worth mentioning actual history here. Among the issues at the Watergate hearing that were brought up centrally by the House Judiciary Committee, Senator Sam Ervin presiding, were the illegal invasion of Cambodia and the abuse of Presidential power. So even if we treat the President of the United States ordering a burglary as part of an unethical and in some aspects illegal political campaign as just a tra-la-la of a thing....well, dunno, but some of us take little things like covert bombings and invasions of neutral countries with a degree of seriousness.

It seems essential to the right-wing/conservative responses on these threads to translate the political and intellectual complexity of these discussions into simple squabbles between Democrats and Republicans, libs and conservs. Sorry, no: the anti-War folks started out protesting Democrats over Vietnam; some of us despise the likes of Walter Mondale for selling out the Mississippi Freedom delegation in 1964; some of us remember what Mayor Daley the First was.

By the way, how'd that whole America meddling in Southeast Asia thing turn out? Oh yes, one recalls, after our victory in Vietnam, the whole region settled down...oh wait, that was Alan Moore's, "The Watchmen," not reality...after we bugged out and left many of our allies behind, we'd actually succeeded in destabilizing the region so completely that groups like the left-wing Khmer Rouge went wild, killing millions..and oh yeah, we left behind (along with other lunatic countries from around the world), so many mines, arms, and trained maniacs that criminals, drug traffickers and genocidal children across the region continue to get worse.

Whew. Thank ahura-mazda that nothing like this could possibly happen in, say, Iraq. That's because we were careful to prove our case and get international support before we went in there, to work out exactly the military needs and logistics that would guarantee not only victory but strong support for our troops, to figure out good strong ways to get a good strong interim government headed by patriots like Mohammed Chalabi in there fast, and to paln a clear, feasible exit strategy before....oops, wait, my liberal baddiness.

That's, like, the TOTAL opposite of what actually happened. Oh, like dude...

 

[PeachMonkey]

You've lost it.

Flatlander hasn't "lost it". The United States invaded Iraq without the support of the UN, without a declaration of war, and without a clear causus belli; this is a violation of international law, for which many have advocated GW Bush and his administration be brought up on charges in the Hague. Several Canadian editorials were even written (tongue-in-cheek, perhaps) about arresting Bush for war crimes during his recent visit. Maybe this isn't realistic, or even the right thing to do, but it's not insane either.

From reading your posts, I get the feeling that there could never be sufficient cause for war. Ann Coulter, bless her heart, says liberals (pardon the label ) are always in favor of the war we are not fighting. Wishing to appear to accept the validity of a "just war" they equivocate until we realize that, to them, there is no such thing. Hmmmmm.

Given that I'm actually a military historian, I feel that there are often causes for war. You might refer to my past discussions about, for instance, the Second World War and the Arab/Israeli conflicts, as well as our invasion of Afghanistan for specific evidence.

If you're basing the thought that there could "never be sufficient cause for war" on my posts about how the Bush Administration never had enough evidence about Iraq's WMD to convince the UN, or declare war, or convince the majority of the planet, then you're simply wrong; I'm outlining a specific case for how one war was sold to the public.

But, much like Ann Coulter, "bless her heart", don't let the facts stop you.

I lumped in Watergate with Vietnam and Laos and Cambodia because Kennedy, and Johnson, and Nixon were all involved in a time period of lies and deceit and manipulation that helped to teach entire generations that the US government -- *any* elected government -- cannot and should not be trusted.

Watergate wasn't just about burglary... it was part of a continued campaign to manipulate political campaigns, control the press, and keep the American people in the dark.

Laos and Cambodia were further horrors of the Nixon presidency, where the United States ordered illegal invasions of sovereign countries, destablized governments, and in the process led to mass murder and genocide. Ever heard of the Khmer Rouge? That was *our fault*. *Nixon's* fault.

Robert's already pointed out more Democratic horrors. Shall I point out more? Afghanistan was deliberately destabilized during the Carter administration to help lure the Soviets into their own Vietnam-style conflict, with the hopes that it would lead to their downfall. This policy was aggressively pursued by the Reagan Administration as well. Look how well that worked out -- for Afghanistan, for the Soviets, for Islamic fundamentalism, and for the people in the Twin Towers.

How about the Shah of Iran? Any takers?

I lumped all of these things together to point out that Democrats and Republicans both are politicans seeking their own ends, and that governments must not be trusted. We elect them into office, and then we *must* be vigilant; we can't be nave; we must take what they do and say with a grain of salt; and we must hold them accountable for their actions. When we don't, we are tacit participants in any evils that take place in our name.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Oh, come on, Robert. Stop insisting people actually study history, and learn from it. I mean, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity say that studying history is for traitors and people who believe that we should *never* defend ourselves.

Just listen to the Supreme Leader. All Hail the Supreme Leader.

 

[ghostdog2]

"Just listen to the Supreme Leader. All Hail the Supreme Leader." Peachmonkey

"She's got it. By Jove, I think she's got it." With apologies to Prof. H. Higgins