The Lies of The Bush Goons

[BenBurch]

For your listening enjoyment;

Wargate (aka Lies) from 2003 (http://server7.WhiteRoseSociety.org/content/malloy/MalloyMemories/Wargate%20(aka%20lies%20-%20original%20airing).mp3)

Courtesy the Mike Malloy Show, http://www.WhiteRoseSociety.org/ and the late ie America Radio Network.

[Puppycow]

I think they were deluded and misled and suffering from groupthink.
If they really knew the truth going in, wouldn't they have manufactured fake WMDs to be planted and then "found" when they went in?

[BenBurch]

I think they were deluded and misled and suffering from groupthink.
If they really knew the truth going in, wouldn't they have manufactured fake WMDs to be planted and then "found" when they went in?

They just thought we have short memories and insufficient guts to deal with them as they deserve. And so far, they're right.

[corplinx]

Saddam had not accounted for some stockpiles of his WMD. Scott Ritter estimated 10-15%. Ritter believed they did not constitute a threat and lobbied against the war.

The true "big lie" is that the administration lied about the existence of WMD. Nobody including the _leading_ anti-war authority (Ritter) thought Saddam had privately destroyed all of his WMD.

Recent reports have made clear that the only humint available said Saddam was working on new programs (and this humint turned out to be Chalabi propaganda).

Ben, you are becoming a tiresome shill on this forum. A skeptic, when presented with evidence that counters his remarks concedes. Did BushCo exaggerate the threat of Iraq? Absolutely. But did they lie about Saddam's WMD? Current evidence says no.

Now is your chance to rise about looking like a 2 dimensional shill on this subforum (like skeptigirl, joeellision, conspiraider, cicero, pomperoo). This is the part where you admit you are wrong and leave Plato's cave.

[BenBurch]

If you weren't LYING you might have a point.

[Upchurch]

If you weren't LYING you might have a point.
What, specifically, do you think he is lying about?

[JoeEllison]

At minimum, they were lying to themselves, and we can assume from past performance that Bush was a clueless parrot. But, they also clearly lied to the American people, and it is disturbing at this late date that some people contest that fact. Every time they said "absolutely" when they said "maybe", those were lies. Especially after the invasion, where they continued to claim that they had found one false smoking gun after another, they were very clearly and blatantly lying.

I can imagine no reason why a sane and honest person would ignore the simple reality of the situation.

[BenBurch]

*We* had absolutely accounted for all the stockpiles in two ways;

1. We had bombed the crap out of any site even suspected of having chemical, nuclear or biological weapons, and had been doing so for years and years. As we have now learned with certainty, this was extremely successful. Most people who knew what was up knew there was nothing left.

2. The UN Inspectors had visited every single site they asked to visit in the run up to this war, and reported there was NOTHING to be found.

3. We now know that the intelligence was "fixed" to make the case for war.

4. That is a misrepresentation of Ritter's statements, but I will have the opportunity to put the question to him by representative in a few weeks, and I will get a clear statement from him on this question and post the audio clip here.

In other words a lie. And an insulting post to boot.

-Ben

[Upchurch]

The true "big lie" is that the administration lied about the existence of WMD. Nobody including the _leading_ anti-war authority (Ritter) thought Saddam had privately destroyed all of his WMD.

*We* had absolutely accounted for all the stockpiles in two ways;
By golly, we have two opposing positions on an issue. I'd call that a debate.

Gentlemen, present your evidences! :D

[corplinx]

4. That is a misrepresentation of Ritter's statements, but I will have the opportunity to put the question to him by representative in a few weeks, and I will get a clear statement from him on this question and post the audio clip here.

In other words a lie. And an insulting post to boot.

-Ben


Source Wikipedia (which sources another publication you are free to buy):

His views at that time are well summarized in War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn’t Want You To Know a 2002 publication which consists largely of an interview between Ritter and anti-war activist William Rivers Pitt. In the interview, Ritter responds to the question of whether he believes Iraq has weapons of mass destruction:

There’s no doubt Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated... We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn’t necessarily constitute a threat... It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn’t amount to much, but which is still prohibited... We can’t give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can’t close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can’t reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war. (page 28)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter

Which is exactly what I said and straight from Scott Ritter's lips and onto the written page. So now, not only do you owe the forum a retraction, but you also owe me an apology for calling me a liar.

[BenBurch]

I'll have Mr. Ritter's answer to this question in a couple weeks;

"On the eve of the war with Iraq, did you believe that Iraq had any significant capability for Chemical, Biological or Nuclear weapons? And why did you believe this?"

Being a Liberal Media Mogul has its perquisites.

[corplinx]

By golly, we have two opposing positions on an issue. I'd call that a debate.

Gentlemen, present your evidences! :D

I don't have an opinion on the topic. I just go with what the best and most current information on the topic has to say since I am not a weapon inspector or intelligence agency worker.

[BenBurch]

No, just an apologist for anything and everything Bush has ever done.

[corplinx]

I'll have Mr. Ritter's answer to this question in a couple weeks;


I just gave you his answer. Why are you stonewalling?

[quixotecoyote]

I don't have an opinion on the topic. I just go with what the best and most current information on the topic has to say ..

you know ol' buddy, some o us round here'd call that a dad gum opinion, speccilly as ya got to decide what's 'best'

[Upchurch]

No, just an apologist for anything and everything Bush has ever done.
corp has his faults, but that just isn't true. Check Post #4, paragraph 4 of this thread.

[BenBurch]

I just gave you his answer. Why are you stonewalling?

You gave me a third hand source. Feb 23rd, I will have that for you first hand, and on tape.

[corplinx]

you know ol' buddy, some o us round here'd call that a dad gum opinion, speccilly as ya got to decide what's 'best'

Yeah, that post of mine was kinda dumb and poorly conveyed what I was trying to say which was "I don't care enough to debate with Ben, Ill probably put him on ignore soon since he doesn't seem to be very reasonable".

[JoeEllison]

corp has his faults, but that just isn't true. Check Post #4, paragraph 4 of this thread.

Yeah, he's just randomly always wrong about things, not always wrong according to a party platform or identifiable ideology. I've decided that he pretty much hates and has contempt for everyone and every thing... so arguing with him is a recipe for pretty much nothing. :rolleyes:

[corplinx]

You gave me a third hand source. Feb 23rd, I will have that for you first hand, and on tape.

Dismissing it as third hand makes me believe you are not interested in talking about this subject in ways that don't agree with your notions of it.

His views at that time are well summarized in War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn’t Want You To Know a 2002 publication which consists largely of an interview between Ritter and anti-war activist William Rivers Pitt.

Wikipedia quotes this interview with page numbers.

So why are you stonewalling?

[gtc]

I'll have Mr. Ritter's answer to this question in a couple weeks;

"On the eve of the war with Iraq, did you believe that Iraq had any significant capability for Chemical, Biological or Nuclear weapons? And why did you believe this?"

Your question is about whether Ritter believed that Iraq retained a significant amount of WMD. That question won't resolve this debate as it just rehashes the point of agreement between you and Corplinx and ignores the real point of disagreement.

Corplinx's position is that Ritter believed that while Iraq retained some WMD, he believed that there was not a significant amount of WMD left in Iraq.

Your position is that there was no cause to believe that there any WMD (significant or otherwise):

*We* had absolutely accounted for all the stockpiles in two ways;

[BenBurch]

Nobody doubts that there were some samples somewhere in Iraq. Or chlorine in about every water treatment plant. Samples do not constitute a weapon. Nor does water chlorination supplies. Not Significant. Absolutely no reason to kill or maim over 40,000 American Soldiers. And a damned lie when used to imply that there was any weaponry that could be used. "Mushroom cloud" my ass!

[corplinx]

Nobody doubts that there were some samples somewhere in Iraq.

Source please?

I gave you the most reliable source on the subject and he said 10-15 percent. That isn't samples. The problem was, Saddam destroyed them without UN inspectors present so they were unaccounted for. That is what the latest findings on the subject of WMD agree on as the most likely case based on witness accounts.

I am still awaiting your apology for calling me a liar.

[JoeEllison]

Nobody doubts that there were some samples somewhere in Iraq. Or chlorine in about every water treatment plant. Samples do not constitute a weapon. Nor does water chlorination supplies. Not Significant. Absolutely no reason to kill or maim over 40,000 American Soldiers. And a damned lie when used to imply that there was any weaponry that could be used. "Mushroom cloud" my ass!

I think the distinction you are looking for is between "weapons" and "weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION"...

There's little doubt that there were surely some weapons laying around Iraq here and there. Our own military has a ridiculously bad habit of being unable to account for things. It is also a fact that Iraq was perfectly within its rights under international law to keep certain types of weapons on hand for potential defensive purposes. The Iraqi military was allowed, under UN rules, to keep small arms and short-range weapons like short-range missiles and artillery.

So, when we examine the claim that "Iraq had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction", we have to ask a couple of questions. Beyond the existence of potentially illegal weapons, we should examine the meaning of "weapons of mass destruction." A weapon able to kill people from a distance? Those were legal for Iraq to have. Illegal weapons? Sure, possibly, but were those hypothetical weapons capable of "mass destruction"? Stockpiles? When you find a 2 hour supply of artillery shells that had mustard gas in them 20 years ago, that hardly constitutes a stockpile.

So, we can see that the claims of "Iraqi stockpiles of WMDs" was ALWAYS known to be false, based on reasonable definitions of terms. A missile doesn't become a WMD because its range is increased 20%. A chemical agent isn't automatically a WMD, unless it is in sufficient quantities and contained within a dispersal device that can deliver the agent to inflict "mass casualties."

[gtc]

Joe,

I see what you are saying. The definition that I was using and, I suspect Corplinx, is that one shell (or whatever) loaded with a biological agent (or chemical or nuclear) is a WMD. But only one shell is not a significant quantity of WMD. I wouldn't classify water chlorination supplies as WMD unless it was clearly not destined for the chlorination of water.

From Corplinx's quote it seems that Ritter thought that Iraq had some WMD but not a significant quantity.

[JoeEllison]

Joe,

I see what you are saying. The definition that I was using and, I suspect Corplinx, is that one shell (or whatever) loaded with a biological agent (or chemical or nuclear) is a WMD. But only one shell is not a significant quantity of WMD. I wouldn't classify water chlorination supplies as WMD unless it was clearly not destined for the chlorination of water.

From Corplinx's quote it seems that Ritter thought that Iraq had some WMD but not a significant quantity.
If it isn't a significant quantity, how does it qualify as a weapon of MASS destruction? Take anthrax, for example. Is a standard-sized envelope containing anthrax a WMD? how about 7 of them? 15?

ETA: Remember, Iraq had perfectly legal and acceptable stockpiles of high-explosive munitions, that no one contested or had a significant problem with.

[corplinx]

From Corplinx's quote it seems that Ritter thought that Iraq had some WMD but not a significant quantity.

What Ritter says is that he didn't consider their remaining stocks to be threatening enough to go to war over. I don't want to make an uninformed opinion about what how much you have to have for it to be "significant".

You can get more detailed notes on the facts and figures of what was unaccounted for.

[Ion]

To:
If you weren't LYING you might have a point.
and to:
*We* had absolutely accounted for all the stockpiles in two ways;

1. We had bombed the crap out of any site even suspected of having chemical, nuclear or biological weapons, and had been doing so for years and years. As we have now learned with certainty, this was extremely successful. Most people who knew what was up knew there was nothing left.

2. The UN Inspectors had visited every single site they asked to visit in the run up to this war, and reported there was NOTHING to be found.

3. We now know that the intelligence was "fixed" to make the case for war.

4. That is a misrepresentation of Ritter's statements, but I will have the opportunity to put the question to him by representative in a few weeks, and I will get a clear statement from him on this question and post the audio clip here.

In other words a lie. And an insulting post to boot.

-Ben
I agree with both quotes.

The evidence that Saddam's W.M.D.s were not any good in 2003, was overwhelming in public information, just before the war.

These who don't agree with your and my stance are irresponsible.
No different than claiming they knew that 2+4=9, but alas, they were wrong.
Otherwise known as lying fanatically, no matter the evidence available at the time.

Just a sample on Ben's 2. and a peaceful alternative to war (i.e.: the peaceful exile of Saddam) comes from Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward with world positions just before the war.

In page 293:

"...Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said, "We have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons program since its elimination in the 1990s."..."

In page 312:

"...Tenet added that he was receiving information from French intelligence, and that he did not have a problem with the current French intelligence..."

In page 313:

"..."I am positive about the Saudi proposal," Chirac said referring to the recent suggestion that Saddam be allowed to go in exile, "because it sought to avoid war."..."

In page 317:

"...Blix's central conclusion -that disarmement through inspections was possible..."

In page 316:

"...Blix reported. "All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly."...the inspectors had "not found any such weapons,..."..."

In page 222:

"...De Villepin insisted on a two-step process. First a resolution for a new round of inspectors...A second resolution would have to be passed to authorize the use of force...
the French position was that a false declaration "and" a general failure to cooperate would constitute a material breach...De Villepin wouldn't budge..."
(note: the first resolution is 1441)

In page 241, regarding Bush:

"..."Chirac says that Sharon is pulling the blinds over my eyes."..."

In page 313:

"...AT 11:35 A.M. Friday, February 7, Chirac called Bush.
"I do not share your spirit for why we need war," Chirac said coolly. "War is not inevitable. There are alternative ways to reach goals. It's a question of morality. I am against war unless it is inevitable and neccessary.".."

"..."Noting today justifies war," Chirac said.

Also consider this:

http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd77/77iraq.htm

"...In contrast, according to Blix, President Chirac had a healthy scepticism about intelligence...His thinking "seemed to be dominated by the conviction that Iraq did not pose a threat that justified armed intervention"..."

[Darth Rotor]

At minimum, they were lying to themselves, and we can assume from past performance that Bush was a clueless parrot.
"All lies and jest,
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
and disregards the rest . . ."

(excerpted lyric from Simon and Garfunkel, The Boxer)

The usual tripe is being batted back and forth over the net, like a shuttlecock, and as usual the players are blithely ignoring the element of time, intention, and change over time that attends a geopolitical risk assessment.

Ritter's position, in hindsight, and in terms of what level of concern the remaining stockpiles represented based on what he could estimate (given info drying up in about 1998) stands up very well to scrutiny and the demands of time. It is a shame that more folks didn't listen, and his role of Cassandra not averted.

His assessment did not, and could not, accurately forecast a 3-5 year time horizon from 2001 - 2006 with regard to intention. This time horizon was the kind of worst case forecasting that Cheney became adamant about viewing the matter through once 9-11 happened. This is the kind of forecasting that the CIA and other Intel services have to do, and which caused so much internal and external controversey. (Scheuer and other insiders have covered such matters very well.)

Cheney made a remark some time ago about not being willing to accept a "one in a hundred" chance of programs being even modestly restored and becoming a potential source of underground material getting into the wrong hands. (This from the four part series on Cheney the Wash Post did a few months back.)

The profound disagreement, on many levels, of that choice of risk management approach being a suitable basis for the war is never going to end. From an objective point of view, if one takes a process analysis template to Cheney's risk mitigation plan, Cheney was trying to play the zero defects game.

Not much of anyone producing anything, be it security or transmissions for cars, can afford zero defects.

There is no security, there are only relative levels of risk you can accept and mitigate.

Ben, Joe, corp, and other cast members in this farce: y'all feel free to call one another liars. The missing of the point is, once again, the central theme of this thread, as it has been in each successive eruption of this polemical, festering, pus-filled zit. (No, that is not a reference to Ion.)

DR

[Ion]

*We* had absolutely accounted for all the stockpiles in two ways;

1. We had bombed the crap out of any site even suspected of having chemical, nuclear or biological weapons, and had been doing so for years and years. As we have now learned with certainty, this was extremely successful. Most people who knew what was up knew there was nothing left.
...
-Ben
Below is a sample of evidence supporting Ben's 1..

In page 11 of Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward is this:

"...Cohen, who was leaving the Defense Department in 10 days, (i.e.: Cohen is a Republican, Secretary of Defense under Clinton, and was leaving office in January 2001) believed that the new administration would soon see the reality about Iraq. They would not find much, if any, support among other countries in the region or the world for strong action against Saddam...Cohen predicted the new team would soon back off and find "reconciliation" with Saddam, who he felt was effectively contained and isolated..."

So take it easy when lying about the evidence that Saddam was any threat in 2003, will you?

[Darth Rotor]

Below is a sample of evidence supporting Ben's 1..

In page 11 of Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward is this:

"...Cohen, who was leaving the Defense Department in 10 days, (i.e.: Cohen is a Republican, Secretary of Defense under Clinton, and was leaving office in January 2001) believed that the new administration would soon see the reality about Iraq. They would not find much, if any, support among other countries in the region or the world for strong action against Saddam...Cohen predicted the new team would soon back off and find "reconciliation" with Saddam, who he felt was effectively contained and isolated..."

So take it easy when lying about the evidence that Saddam was any threat in 2003, will you?
Cohen's opinion does not equal fact, nor evidence. You are citing an opinion held by one man as "evidence."

In your defense, he was in a position to have an idea of what things looked like during his tenure at the strategic level, given the conditions of the time.

About his tenure.

Cohen, as a Sec Def, was a disappointment. He could not hold William Perry's jock.

DR

[Ion]

Cohen's opinion does not equal fact.

Cohen, as a Sec Def, was an disappointment. He could not hold William Perry's jock.

DR
Neither are Blix's and El Baradei's positions in U.N. on invesigating weapons in Iraq -which I quoted- once Bush wants to war.

The point is that Bush's opinion was presented as fact.

And Bush's opinion was fanaticism at that time, and is fanaticism today.

Cohen is right and Bush is a fanatic liar, aren't they?

[Molinaro]

At minimum, they were lying to themselves, and we can assume from past performance that Bush was a clueless parrot. But, they also clearly lied to the American people, and it is disturbing at this late date that some people contest that fact. Every time they said "absolutely" when they said "maybe", those were lies. Especially after the invasion, where they continued to claim that they had found one false smoking gun after another, they were very clearly and blatantly lying.

I can imagine no reason why a sane and honest person would ignore the simple reality of the situation.

I can honestly say that you strike me as totaly insane with your baseless accusations. You aren't describing reality. You are describing how you want reality to be. Not the same at all.

[corplinx]

[I]"All lies and jest,

Ben, Joe, corp, and other cast members in this farce: y'all feel free to call one another liars. The missing of the point is, once again, the central theme of this thread, as it has been in each successive eruption of this polemical, festering, pus-filled zit. (No, that is not a reference to Ion.)



Breach of Membership Agreement removed.

There is nothing farcical about the Ritter's Iraq assessments. In fact, most people don't even know they exist. The real farce is that people like Burch believe the meme that Ritter said there was nothing and the right wingers believe a meme that Ritter was a unreliable flip flopper.

Claiming I am part of a farce is nearly as insulting as Burch calling me a liar for presenting evidence that he dismissed out of hand.

This thread is really simple, it comes down Burch making a claim based on a false pretense and not capitulating when another forum member revealed it to be outright inaccurate.

[steverino]

2. The UN Inspectors had visited every single site they asked to visit in the run up to this war, and reported there was NOTHING to be found.

-Ben

:D

They asked Saddam for a visit to this place and that in advance, and he prepped the sites, as Chicago's Mayor Daley did when he hid the homeless and planted palm trees along Michigan Avenue when the Democratic Convention visited.

Palm trees for chrissake.

[BenBurch]

:D

They asked Saddam for a visit to this place and that in advance, and he prepped the sites, as Chicago's Mayor Daley did when he hid the homeless and planted palm trees along Michigan Avenue when the Democratic Convention visited.

Palm trees for chrissake.

:dl:

So, after we bombed the holy crap out of the place and sent in tens of thousands of armed "inspectors" we still found nothing of note.

Nice fantasy life you have, though!

[gtc]

If it isn't a significant quantity, how does it qualify as a weapon of MASS destruction? Take anthrax, for example. Is a standard-sized envelope containing anthrax a WMD? how about 7 of them? 15?

Fair point, my terminology was wrong. How about Chemical/Biological/Nuclear Weapon (CBNW) and WMD for an amount of CBNW that could pose a significant threat.

I would argue that pool chemicals are not a CBNW unless they are diverted to military uses and the difference between CBNW and WMD would depend on the context.

ETA: Remember, Iraq had perfectly legal and acceptable stockpiles of high-explosive munitions, that no one contested or had a significant problem with.

I suspect that the Kurds and Iranians had significant problems with Iran's conventional weapons! But you are right about conventional weapons - they can be just as destructive as WMD.

[Brainster]

Some more liars that I'm sure Ben will get around to denouncing:

Barbara Boxer: "Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." November 8, 2002

Robert Byrd: "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." October 2002

Wesley Clark: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." September 26, 2002

Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." October 10, 2002

John Edwards: "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." October 10, 2002

Dick Gephardt: "I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." September 2002

Al Gore: "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." 2002 (undated)

Ted Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." September 27, 2002.

John Kerry: "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." October 9, 2002

[fuelair]

*We* had absolutely accounted for all the stockpiles in two ways;

1. We had bombed the crap out of any site even suspected of having chemical, nuclear or biological weapons, and had been doing so for years and years. As we have now learned with certainty, this was extremely successful. Most people who knew what was up knew there was nothing left.

2. The UN Inspectors had visited every single site they asked to visit in the run up to this war, and reported there was NOTHING to be found.

3. We now know that the intelligence was "fixed" to make the case for war.

4. That is a misrepresentation of Ritter's statements, but I will have the opportunity to put the question to him by representative in a few weeks, and I will get a clear statement from him on this question and post the audio clip here.

In other words a lie. And an insulting post to boot.

-BenJust a quick thing- during the period before the war began (actually for years prior to it - about 15 to be exact ) I listened to NPR every morning on the way to work and every afternoon/evening heading home. Time after time - when the inspectors were in Iraq- there would be a story about the latest blocking of inspectors at a site they had come to inspect - even when it had "been approved" by those "in charge". I specify because once the inspectors left, that did not matter - but unless NPR was wrong or lying (and they had not been forced to add that conservative pile of excrement IIRC at the time so that is not likely) inspectors were not being allowed to check any area at any time (the requirement). You may recall that I trust nothing shrub or his handlers say so it is easy to believe they did know the truth, but suspicion that they didn't - based on my news source -still makes me wonder.

[BenBurch]

That was in fact true for years. But as soon as Saddam realized we were serious about an invasion he got a LOT more cooperative. And the inspectors were able to make certain that all of the IAEC-sealed stuff was where it should have been and checked out numerous sites. There was sufficient inspection to determine that nothing significant was happening, and, as events later PROVED, nothing was.

[BenBurch]

Brainster,

Those people you quote are indeed fools for believing what they were spoon-fed in the way of intelligence. If your point is that they believed the lies, you've made it. I never believed them. And I was on the National Mall with about a half million other people who didn't believe it either in the Autumn of 2002. And I was right as proven by actual ground truth acquired at a horrific cost in dead and maimed US Soldiers. Unlike you on the Right, I have only the highest respect for US Military Personnel, and am appalled at the incredible waste of our finest citizens.

-Ben

[HereticHulk]

I think they were deluded and misled and suffering from groupthink.
If they really knew the truth going in, wouldn't they have manufactured fake WMDs to be planted and then "found" when they went in?

Because planting the WMD's would be a surefire way to get caught lying red handed.

Now as it stands at least they have that plausible deny ability thing going for them...again.

I just hope Wexler can get impeachment hearings and maybe we can find out.

[corplinx]

What people need to realize is that the least likely scenario (Saddam voluntarily destroyed his stockpiles without inspectors present) happened. The problem here is Saddam set himself up. With no accounting for their destruction, it was nearly impossible to prove he wasn't hiding anything. On top of that, he was acting like he was hiding something. His delays letting inspectors into sites looked just like what people expected out of Saddam Hussein.

The thing that dismays me now are the people who pretend that their position now is what is was then. The debate back before the war wasn't about whether or not Saddam had it. The debate then was whether or not what he had constituted a threat (much like Ritter's arguement at the time). I think there are a lot of people with a phoney "I told you so" attitudes.

[Darth Rotor]

There is nothing farcical about the Ritter's Iraq assessments. In fact, most people don't even know they exist. The real farce is that people like Burch believe the meme that Ritter said there was nothing and the right wingers believe a meme that Ritter was a unreliable flip flopper.

Claiming I am part of a farce is nearly as insulting as Burch calling me a liar for presenting evidence that he dismissed out of hand.

This thread is really simple, it comes down Burch making a claim based on a false pretense and not capitulating when another forum member revealed it to be outright inaccurate.
I'll accept that rebuke. Will use a different brush next time.
The debate back before the war wasn't about whether or not Saddam had it. The debate then was whether or not what he had constituted a threat (much like Ritter's arguement at the time). I think there are a lot of people with a phoney "I told you so" attitude
We are in violent agreement, except add "and what one should do about such a threat." There are usually more than two courses of action considered.

As I pointed out in my post, that argument is never going to end. Hence, my barb that this being brought up again is a farce. The assessment made under worst case was one way to do it, but not the only way.

Ben and his half a million allies may have had a gut feel that they were right, but they could not show it, and could not know until the uncertainty was removed that Saddam's NBC cupboard was rather bare.

Ben and his marching colleagues are doubtless bitter about their utter failure. March and convince nobody who matters. That's failure, unless your goal is to feel good about yourself.

If the marching mass was right at the time, one wonders, why did they suck so badly at packaging their message to our elected representatives? Why did they suck so badly at communicating that their position did not sway enough people who could act to change the flow of events to so act?

If you are right and can back up your claim of rightness, bad packaging and bad salesmanship is a poor way to proceed.

Cassandra for fifty, Alex. :p

See the Dallas Cowboys in their recent playoffs exit: they were right, in terms of having a good team, but they packaged their rightness rather poorly (in lousy play and execution.) So, they failed.

Being a failure makes some people bitter.

Maybe that's why they, the failures, keep bringing it up: it is an attempt to exorcise the demon of failure.

DR

[Elind]

They just thought we have short memories and insufficient guts to deal with them as they deserve. And so far, they're right.

We??

Taking some liberties with your assumptions there aren't you, or was that a Royal We?

You sound like a Ron Paul fan.

[BenBurch]

We??

Taking some liberties with your assumptions there aren't you, or was that a Royal We?

You sound like a Ron Paul fan.

I am empowered to speak for my eyelash mites.

http://www.andrewlost.com.nyud.net/images/hair_page/eyelash_mite.jpg

And Dr. Paul should have stuck to his speculum...

[Bob Klase]

Post Deleted

[Ion]

...Time after time - when the inspectors were in Iraq- there would be a story about the latest blocking of inspectors at a site they had come to inspect - even when it had "been approved" by those "in charge"...
That's part of the propaganda.

The reality is that Saddam was reluctant to coperate but it is well known that in 2003 he was cooperating:

"The important thing to remember, Blix said repeatedly, was that Saddam was cooperating with the inspections, despite the difficulties they create for a leader. "No one likes inspectors, not tax inspectors, not health inspectors, not any inspectors," Blix chuckled. Not only did Saddam have to endure the indignity of submitting to searches of his palaces, he explained, but the dictator also harbored the valid fear that the inspectors would pass on their findings of conventional weapons to foreign intelligence agencies, providing easy future targets."

is from:

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/18_blix.shtml

[Darth Rotor]

And Dr. Paul should have stuck to his speculum...
Had he not cleaned it, it would have stuck to him. :p

Good one, Ben, I'm gonna use that before this race is all over, in an (in)appropriate social setting.

DR

[BenBurch]

Had he not cleaned it, it would have stuck to him. :p

Good one, Ben, I'm gonna use that before this race is all over, in an (in)appropriate social setting.

DR

Have at it! :D

[Elind]

The thing that dismays me now are the people who pretend that their position now is what is was then. The debate back before the war wasn't about whether or not Saddam had it. The debate then was whether or not what he had constituted a threat (much like Ritter's arguement at the time). I think there are a lot of people with a phoney "I told you so" attitudes.

You are right, although you are being kind. The argument that I heard loudest against war was the simple, valid, one against war (other than those actually for Saddam). The partial argument in that same camp was "let sanctions work", while simultaneously lobbying to remove sanctions.

Seems little difference between Bush's (and most everyone else's) wrong fundamentals and their wrong fundamentals.

Now if anyone wants to try to impeach Bush and Co. on the basis of being just plain incompetent managers after wining a war, I'll sign the petition, although isn't that what we have elections for?

[Ion]

I disagree with this:
What people need to realize is that the least likely scenario (Saddam voluntarily destroyed his stockpiles without inspectors present) happened. The problem here is Saddam set himself up. With no accounting for their destruction, it was nearly impossible to prove he wasn't hiding anything. On top of that, he was acting like he was hiding something. His delays letting inspectors into sites looked just like what people expected out of Saddam Hussein.

The thing that dismays me now are the people who pretend that their position now is what is was then. The debate back before the war wasn't about whether or not Saddam had it. The debate then was whether or not what he had constituted a threat (much like Ritter's arguement at the time). I think there are a lot of people with a phoney "I told you so" attitudes.
and this:
You are right, although you are being kind. The argument that I heard loudest against war was the simple, valid, one against war (other than those actually for Saddam). The partial argument in that same camp was "let sanctions work", while simultaneously lobbying to remove sanctions.

Seems little difference between Bush's (and most everyone else's) wrong fundamentals and their wrong fundamentals.

Now if anyone wants to try to impeach Bush and Co. on the basis of being just plain incompetent managers after wining a war, I'll sign the petition, although isn't that what we have elections for?
The reason is that Saddam didn't do it to himself.

If Saddam was doing it to himself, then Israel is more than doing it to itself when breaching U.N. 242, 338, and the Oslo Accord.

It is plenty clear from my posts here that Bush lied about Saddam in order to occupy Iraq.

That's what did it to Saddam:

Bush lies.

I say:

I told you so, back in 2003.

[BenBurch]

As Promised; http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=107175

[E.J.Armstrong]

Its great to see some people in the USA using the truth to hold the criminals up to ridicule.

Many of the lies were repeated to the UK by Blair in his dodgy dossiers and in parliament. For this heroic feat he has been awarded the Congressional Gold medal.

I note that he has failed to front up and collect his prize for lying yet. I believe that, contrary to previous assertions, the US congress has found out how to inscribe 'For lying to the people of the UK' onto the medal.

Is the USA really going to proceed with the farrago of presenting Blair with one of its most respected awards on the basis that he lied to the people of the UK and thereby have all the previous holders around the entire world demeaned by association?

That surely wouldn't even happen on Fuller's earth.

[Elind]

One can always tell a certain category of poster by counting the number of times they use the word "lie"; I tell no lie.

[LastChild]

Some more liars that I'm sure Ben will get around to denouncing:

Barbara Boxer: "Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." November 8, 2002

Robert Byrd: "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." October 2002

Wesley Clark: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." September 26, 2002

Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." October 10, 2002

John Edwards: "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." October 10, 2002

Dick Gephardt: "I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." September 2002

Al Gore: "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." 2002 (undated)

Ted Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." September 27, 2002.

John Kerry: "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." October 9, 2002


All based on lies they were told that were put together by people who had their own agenda.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070226/dreyfuss

Feith-Libby Lies Exposed

Robert Dreyfuss article | posted February 12, 2007 (web only)
It's Iran in the headlines today, but happily on February 9 we got a timely reminder of how brazenly the Bush Administration--along with its neoconservative allies at The Weekly Standard and the American Enterprise Institute--trumped up the case for war against Iraq five years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Feith

A subordinate of Feith's, Larry Franklin, was convicted, and sentenced to 12 years in Federal prison in 2005 for charges in an espionage scandal. Franklin was accused and convicted of passing classified information to an Israeli diplomat and Steven Rosen, an employee of the Israeli AIPAC lobby.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1456650.htm

Some members of the US intelligence community "knew at that time that some of these sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up," Mr. Powell said.

"These are not senior people, but these are people who were aware that some of these resources should not be considered reliable," he said.

"I was enormously disappointed."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

(CBS) In the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush ordered his then top anti-terrorism adviser to look for a link between Iraq and the attacks, despite being told there didn't seem to be one.

[Kestrel]

You are right, although you are being kind. The argument that I heard loudest against war was the simple, valid, one against war (other than those actually for Saddam). The partial argument in that same camp was "let sanctions work", while simultaneously lobbying to remove sanctions.

Seems little difference between Bush's (and most everyone else's) wrong fundamentals and their wrong fundamentals.

Now if anyone wants to try to impeach Bush and Co. on the basis of being just plain incompetent managers after wining a war, I'll sign the petition, although isn't that what we have elections for?

I had no problem with leaning on Saddam so he would allow the inspectors to do their job. But you must remember that Saddam did give in and allowed the inspections to resume. The inspections verified that Iraq didn't have an active WMD program.

Bush responded by starting a war. It was a moral equivalent to shooting someone who has just handed over their wallet and put their hands in the air.

[Cicero]

I had no problem with leaning on Saddam so he would allow the inspectors to do their job. But you must remember that Saddam did give in and allowed the inspections to resume. The inspections verified that Iraq didn't have an active WMD program.

Bush responded by starting a war. It was a moral equivalent to shooting someone who has just handed over their wallet and put their hands in the air.

How you could manage to construct such nonsensical hyperbole, in the face of Saddam's own admission for keeping up the WOMD ruse, is truly astounding.

"...every time inspectors came, Saddam gave them the runaround, reinforcing for Iran's consumption the notion that he had WMD. And that explains why, if there were no WMD, he acted as if he did have them."

George Piro, Arabic speaking F.B.I agent, assigned the task of being Saddam Hussein's interrogator.

"So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks.

"It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.

[LastChild]

How you could manage to construct such nonsensical hyperbole, in the face of Saddam's own admission for keeping up the WOMD ruse, is truly astounding.

"...every time inspectors came, Saddam gave them the runaround, reinforcing for Iran's consumption the notion that he had WMD. And that explains why, if there were no WMD, he acted as if he did have them."

George Piro, Arabic speaking F.B.I agent, assigned the task of being Saddam Hussein's interrogator.

"So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks.

"It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.

Because Saddam didn’t want to reveal the full extent of Iraq’s weaknesses to Iran and the rest of the world doesn’t mean he was a true threat. The people pushing for war knew this and used it as an excuse to invade. Still his reluctance of full compliance with the inspections wasn’t enough to warrant an invasion on its own so they cooked up some more lies to embellish the cause like supposed bio labs and aluminum tubes.

It was all bull. Still we have idiots willing to be suckered once again by these traitors and crooks for the next item on their agenda…

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/10/ftn/main2908476.shtml

Lieberman: Bomb Iran If It Doesn't Stop

Conn. Senator Says The U.S. Should Strike If Tehran Keeps Helping Anti-U.S. Forces In Iraq

[KoihimeNakamura]

Because Saddam didn’t want to reveal the full extent of Iraq’s weaknesses to Iran and the rest of the world doesn’t mean he was a true threat. The people pushing for war knew this and used it as an excuse to invade. Still his reluctance of full compliance with the inspections wasn’t enough to warrant an invasion on its own so they cooked up some more lies to embellish the cause like supposed bio labs and aluminum tubes.

It was all bull. Still we have idiots willing to be suckered once again by these traitors and crooks for the next item on their agenda…

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/10/ftn/main2908476.shtml

Lieberman: Bomb Iran If It Doesn't Stop

Conn. Senator Says The U.S. Should Strike If Tehran Keeps Helping Anti-U.S. Forces In Iraq

It's OPINION MAN!!!

[Cicero]

Because Saddam didn’t want to reveal the full extent of Iraq’s weaknesses to Iran and the rest of the world doesn’t mean he was a true threat. The people pushing for war knew this and used it as an excuse to invade.

Please provide the information that unequivocally states that Bush 43 and his administration, and Tony Blair, and the UN, knew Saddam did not have any WOMD's back in 2003?

Next time a mugger tells you he has a gun in his pocket and to hand over your valuables or be shot, you had better ask him to produce the weapon before complying with his demands since you do not accept his proposal as a legitimate threat to your life.

Since the imminent threat to Saddam's rule was from the US in 2003, not Iran, his supposed pretense in claiming possession of WOMD's does not make much sense.

[Elind]

All based on lies they were told that were put together by people who had their own agenda.

You realize that people who list quotes like you do, and then pretend to make an argument through the above statement (another lover of the word "lie") would seem to have their own agenda too.

[LastChild]

Please provide the information that unequivocally states that Bush 43 and his administration, and Tony Blair, and the UN, knew Saddam did not have any WOMD's back in 2003?

Cicero why did Powell wash his hands of the whole mess? Why did he state...

"I was enormously disappointed."

Let me give you the article and the quotes once again in case you missed it the first time...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...9/s1456650.htm

Some members of the US intelligence community "knew at that time that some of these sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up," Mr. Powell said.

Next time a mugger tells you he has a gun in his pocket and to hand over your valuables or be shot, you had better ask him to produce the weapon before complying with his demands since you do not accept his proposal as a legitimate threat to your life.

Is it really the mugger claiming the gun is pointed at me or is it his next door neighbor who doesn't like him claiming he has a gun pointed at me?

Since the imminent threat to Saddam's rule was from the US in 2003, not Iran, his supposed pretense in claiming possession of WOMD's does not make much sense.

It makes perfect sense. Who shows all their cards when they have an aggressive neighbor right on their border? Saddam wasn't a threat and the sanctions were working just like Clinton politely informed PNAC as much when they sent him their little chicken hawk agenda.

[Elind]

Saddam wasn't a threat and the sanctions were working just like Clinton politely informed PNAC as much when they sent him their little chicken hawk agenda.

The sanctions were working? Really? What were your news sources?

The sanction would have continued to work (you imply)? Really? They were dying a death of a thousand cuts and by now Saddam would have had over 10 years to play catch up with Iran.

Why is it that people who have an agenda against one party will always ignore the simplest facts that contradict their agenda?

So you think Saddam would have had an epiphany and suddenly changed spots, if left alone, do you?

[Cicero]

Cicero why did Powell wash his hands of the whole mess? Why did he state...

"I was enormously disappointed."

Let me give you the article and the quotes once again in case you missed it the first time...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...9/s1456650.htm

Some members of the US intelligence community "knew at that time that some of these sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up," Mr. Powell said.



Is it really the mugger claiming the gun is pointed at me or is it his next door neighbor who doesn't like him claiming he has a gun pointed at me?



It makes perfect sense. Who shows all their cards when they have an aggressive neighbor right on their border? Saddam wasn't a threat and the sanctions were working just like Clinton politely informed PNAC as much when they sent him their little chicken hawk agenda.

Would that be the same Colin Powell, who went to the UN with blown up photos of supposed vehicles that were WOMD weapon launchers? Yet the photos showed nothing as one would expect to see in the detailed 1962 recon photos of missiles in Cuba.

Citing Powell as your authority only diminishes your contention that the US knew there were no WOMD's in Iraq in 2003.

What are you talking about? The US forces were in Kuwait in 2003 and Saddam STILL claimed he had WOMD's. What does Iran have to do with the imminent threat to Saddam's regime? I guess that answers who the mugger is, who he is pointing his "gun" at, and who still maintained that he had the "gun."[/I]

[LastChild]

The sanctions were working? Really? What were your news sources?

Yes really. Where are these weapons of mass destruction? Is that why we are still there or is it or democracy now? And if this democracy ever does emerge what will be the next reason given for us still being there? Do we really need any more reasons other then some of the obvious ones?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/12/world/middleeast/12oil.html

Billions in Oil Missing in Iraq, U.S. Study Says
By JAMES GLANZ
Published: May 12, 2007

Between 100,000 and 300,000 barrels a day of Iraq’s declared oil production over the past four years is unaccounted for and could have been siphoned off through corruption or smuggling, according to a draft American government report.

The sanction would have continued to work (you imply)? Really? They were dying a death of a thousand cuts and by now Saddam would have had over 10 years to play catch up with Iran.

Imply? Am I implying what Bill Clinton told PNAC when they sent him their agenda long before Bush was in office, before 9/11, and before any of this supposed proof of weapons of mass destruction? Did they get their war or not? Did the WMD materialize or not?

Give it up its pathetic.

Why is it that people who have an agenda against one party will always ignore the simplest facts that contradict their agenda?

What's my agenda? Pointing out bull?

So you think Saddam would have had an epiphany and suddenly changed spots, if left alone, do you?

Saddam is dead now but we're still there aren't we?

[LastChild]

Would that be the same Colin Powell, who went to the UN with blown up photos of supposed vehicles that were WOMD weapon launchers? Yet the photos showed nothing as one would expect to see in the detailed 1962 recon photos of missiles in Cuba.

Citing Powell as your authority only diminishes your contention that the US knew there were no WOMD's in Iraq in 2003.

The fact that Colin Powell now realizes he was lied to and that the Bush administration pimped out his trust worthy image to sell a pack of lies to the UN diminishes my argument? How so?

What are you talking about? The US forces were in Kuwait in 2003 and Saddam STILL claimed he had WOMD's. What does Iran have to do with the imminent threat to Saddam's regime? I guess that answers who the mugger is, who he is pointing his "gun" at, and who still maintained that he had the "gun."[/I]

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/05/04/chalabi/index4.html

How Ahmed Chalabi conned the neocons

The neocons' Iraq triumph of last year has turned to ashes. Their Likud allies in Israel are bitterly split over Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plans for the settlements in the territories. They have a coldly hostile Iraqi government coming in the near future. The clerical regime they loathe in Iran has dramatically improved its strategic position. Some of them must be rueing the day they met Ahmed Chalabi, who told them the fairy tales they wanted to hear.

[Elind]

Yes really. Where are these weapons of mass destruction?

The simple point is that we know, even you, that they were there before, and were used. The assumption that they still were there, under the circumstances that are well known, is perfectly logical given the history of Saddam, and Iraq in general.

Is that why we are still there or is it or democracy now? And if this democracy ever does emerge what will be the next reason given for us still being there? Do we really need any more reasons other then some of the obvious ones?What does that have to do with the above point, except that Iraqis are a poor excuse for a civil culture? Do you want to discuss the incompetence of the Bush administration (I'm sure we can agree plenty) or the issue that we started on?


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/12/world/middleeast/12oil.html

Billions in Oil Missing in Iraq, U.S. Study Says
By JAMES GLANZ
Published: May 12, 2007

Between 100,000 and 300,000 barrels a day of Iraq’s declared oil production over the past four years is unaccounted for and could have been siphoned off through corruption or smuggling, according to a draft American government report.
Yes, that is well known. The Iraqis are born thieves and president Bush thought they had a civilization that would respond to a faith based appeal. Is that your point?


Imply? Am I implying what Bill Clinton told PNAC when they sent him their agenda long before Bush was in office, before 9/11, and before any of this supposed proof of weapons of mass destruction? Did they get their war or not? Did the WMD materialize or not?Huhh?

Give it up its pathetic.Something is.



What's my agenda? Pointing out bull?
No need to point. The agenda is obvious.


Saddam is dead now but we're still there aren't we?Yes, I know that. Is that the essence of what you have to say?

[LastChild]

Iraqis are a poor excuse for a civil culture...

Charming

The Iraqis are born thieves...

Nice


Huhh?

Are the words hard to find when you're not being a bigot?

Something is.

It sure is.

No need to point. The agenda is obvious.

You're the one with the agenda and a disgusting one at that.

Yes, I know that. Is that the essence of what you have to say?

Pointing out the bull was the essence. Did you miss that?

[Elind]

Are the words hard to find when you're not being a bigot?



The point about calling a bigot is to be sure you understand what the bigotry is about.



You're the one with the agenda and a disgusting one at that.

Yes I have an agenda, and it is not yours. We are mutually exclusive. Do you find that disgusting? I find it reassuring.



Pointing out the bull was the essence. Did you miss that?

No. I was doing the same.

[LastChild]

The point about calling a bigot is to be sure you understand what the bigotry is about.

Why don't you tell me all about your understanding of bigotry. You got some kind of license I don't know about?

Yes I have an agenda, and it is not yours. We are mutually exclusive. Do you find that disgusting? I find it reassuring.

What's your agenda? Besides ignorance that is.


No. I was doing the same.

You were spewing bull not pointing it out.

[Cicero]

The fact that Colin Powell now realizes he was lied to and that the Bush administration pimped out his trust worthy image to sell a pack of lies to the UN diminishes my argument? How so?



http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/05/04/chalabi/index4.html

How Ahmed Chalabi conned the neocons

The neocons' Iraq triumph of last year has turned to ashes. Their Likud allies in Israel are bitterly split over Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plans for the settlements in the territories. They have a coldly hostile Iraqi government coming in the near future. The clerical regime they loathe in Iran has dramatically improved its strategic position. Some of them must be rueing the day they met Ahmed Chalabi, who told them the fairy tales they wanted to hear.


Typical of libs to reject a conservative source until that source abandons their conservatism and becomes a liberal. David Brock was vilified by the libs when he wrote articles about Anita Hill in National Spectator, but is now their darling as the creator of Media Matters.

Powell, a four star general, former Chairman of the JCOS, SEC of State, was incapable of deciphering an satellite intelligence photo in 2003, but after he left the Bush administration, his vision cleared up? Please. Powell has zero credibility. He lost it when he pointed to a photo that did not show what he said it did. He did not gain back this lost credibility by now saying he was "pressured' into going along with the flow. What a pathetic figure he has become.

Chalabi? Man, are you behind the learning curve. Why are the libs so ignorant about the history of bad intel that America has acted on? I guess slogans such as Bush Lied, People Died" has a better ring to it than "Intel Bad, Still Took Baghdad."

In 1999, an Iraqi refugee, soon code-named Curveball, told German intelligence agents of his work on an ongoing Iraqi program that produced biological weapons in mobile laboratories. His claims electrified the CIA, which had little good intelligence about Saddam Hussein's regime and was fixated on the threat of Iraqi WMDs, which later became a centerpiece in the Bush administration's case for invading Iraq. It was only after American occupation forces failed to find any mobile germ-warfare labs—or other WMDs—that prewar warnings about Curveball's heavy drinking and mental instability, and the nagging gaps and contradictions in his story, were taken seriously. In this engrossing account, Los Angeles Times correspondent Drogin paints an intimate and revealing portrait of the workings and dysfunctions of the intelligence community. Hobbled by internal and external turf battles and hypnotized by pet theories, the CIA—including director George Tenet, whose reputation suffers another black eye here—ignored skeptics, the author contends, and fell in love with a dubious source who told the agency and the White House what they wanted to hear. Instead of connecting the dots, Drogin argues, the CIA and its allies made up the dots. (Oct. 16)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

[LastChild]

Typical of libs to reject a conservative source until that source abandons their conservatism and becomes a liberal. David Brock was vilified by the libs when he wrote articles about Anita Hill in National Spectator, but is now their darling as the creator of Media Matters.

Powell, a four star general, former Chairman of the JCOS, SEC of State, was incapable of deciphering an satellite intelligence photo in 2003, but after he left the Bush administration, his vision cleared up? Please. Powell has zero credibility. He lost it when he pointed to a photo that did not show what he said it did. He did not gain back this lost credibility by now saying he was "pressured' into going along with the flow. What a pathetic figure he has become.

Chalabi? Man, are you behind the learning curve. Why are the libs so ignorant about the history of bad intel that America has acted on? I guess slogans such as Bush Lied, People Died" has a better ring to it than "Intel Bad, Still Took Baghdad."

In 1999, an Iraqi refugee, soon code-named Curveball, told German intelligence agents of his work on an ongoing Iraqi program that produced biological weapons in mobile laboratories. His claims electrified the CIA, which had little good intelligence about Saddam Hussein's regime and was fixated on the threat of Iraqi WMDs, which later became a centerpiece in the Bush administration's case for invading Iraq. It was only after American occupation forces failed to find any mobile germ-warfare labs—or other WMDs—that prewar warnings about Curveball's heavy drinking and mental instability, and the nagging gaps and contradictions in his story, were taken seriously. In this engrossing account, Los Angeles Times correspondent Drogin paints an intimate and revealing portrait of the workings and dysfunctions of the intelligence community. Hobbled by internal and external turf battles and hypnotized by pet theories, the CIA—including director George Tenet, whose reputation suffers another black eye here—ignored skeptics, the author contends, and fell in love with a dubious source who told the agency and the White House what they wanted to hear. Instead of connecting the dots, Drogin argues, the CIA and its allies made up the dots. (Oct. 16)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

So your argument is it's Powell's fault he was lied to by a bunch of people he should known were crooks and traitors? That's what he gets for being such a goody two shoes Boy Scout huh? Classic.

And what's this other part about faulty intelligence? What's that a built in excuse for lying? It's really more about searching out what you want hear to support your already planned agenda and throwing out the rest.

Try to keep up.

[cloudshipsrule]

Governments were sharing information. Much of, but not all, of that information happened to be wrong, but that is beside the point.

Saddam being gone is a good thing, and good things are now happening everyday in Iraq. (Yeah, bad things are too, but that's nothing new in 5000 years.)

The reasons for the war weren't a justification for said war, but it's done and too late to argue over the 'why's'. What needs to be done now is to concentrate on a strategy to finish what was started in a timely manner and in a way which benefits both Iraq and the men and women serving. Period.

Bitching over who or what's right and wrong accomplishes nothing.

[JoeEllison]

Governments were sharing information. Much of, but not all, of that information happened to be wrong, but that is beside the point.

Saddam being gone is a good thing, and good things are now happening everyday in Iraq. (Yeah, bad things are too, but that's nothing new in 5000 years.)

The reasons for the war weren't a justification for said war, but it's done and too late to argue over the 'why's'. What needs to be done now is to concentrate on a strategy to finish what was started in a timely manner and in a way which benefits both Iraq and the men and women serving. Period.

Bitching over who or what's right and wrong accomplishes nothing.

Yeah, right and wrong, fact and fiction, truth and lies... those things only apply when Democrats are involved. When Republicans are involved, we need to "get over it."

[cloudshipsrule]

Yeah, right and wrong, fact and fiction, truth and lies... those things only apply when Democrats are involved. When Republicans are involved, we need to "get over it."

I never felt, nor said such. Monica was cute, and I never was sure what 'is' really meant anyway. P.S., I'm not republican if that's what you're guessing.

[fishbob]

Yes, that is well known. The Iraqis are born thieves and president Bush thought they had a civilization that would respond to a faith based appeal. Is that your point?


This means that Bush is even stupider than I ever imagined.
Whoda thunk that Elind would be the one to point this out.

[Cicero]

So your argument is it's Powell's fault he was lied to by a bunch of people he should known were crooks and traitors? That's what he gets for being such a goody two shoes Boy Scout huh? Classic.

And what's this other part about faulty intelligence? What's that a built in excuse for lying? It's really more about searching out what you want hear to support your already planned agenda and throwing out the rest.

Try to keep up.

My argument? In your zeal to plant a big sloppy smooch on Powell you have imagined that he was some unwitting dupe of Bush & Cheney. How did Powell manage to get through West Point, Vietnam, get 4 stars, head up the NSC and the State Department if he can not distinguish between photographs that show WOMD's and those that do not? He was no more lied to than Bush was lied to by poor intel, including the then believable "Curveball."

Even the most ardent liberal critic of the Iraq War, David Korn, always stopped short of stating Bush "lied" to the American people about WOMD's. Just because Bush was wrong, does not mean that he knew he was wrong before the invasion of Iraq. FDR told the American people that Japan was going to invade the US. He was wrong. FDR was told that Germany was close to making an atomic bomb. FDR then accelerated the Manhattan Project. It tuned out FDR was given faulty intel.

My agenda? i never believed from the evidence shown before the 2003 Iraq invasion that they Saddam did have WOMD's. But I was not against taking him out of power either. Had Bush 43 not tried to sell the WOMD reason for taking out Saddam, he had plenty of other valid reasons to take the course of action.

Since you did not volunteer for military service, I am not sure why you are seized with such indignation. Would you really have such a different positon had either WOMD's been found in Iraq, or if Bush 43 never even mentioned them as a reason to invade Iraq? Be honest.

[fishbob]

Please provide the information that unequivocally states that Bush 43 and his administration, and Tony Blair, and the UN, knew Saddam did not have any WOMD's back in 2003?

Do you just not deal with reality often or is your day job down on some sports field moving goalposts?

Five years ago, Bush 43 and his administration, and Tony Blair, and the UN knew that Saddam was not likely to have much in the way of WMDs - and they knew how to keep Saddam in check so that more intel could be gathered - and Blix and his inspectors were doing just that. Unequivocal knowledge is out of the realm of possibility. To expect otherwise is not believable, to demand if from others is dishonest.

"...every time inspectors came, Saddam gave them the runaround, reinforcing for Iran's consumption the notion that he had WMD. And that explains why, if there were no WMD, he acted as if he did have them."

George Piro, Arabic speaking F.B.I agent, assigned the task of being Saddam Hussein's interrogator.

"So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks.

"It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.

This was not some kind of sooper-sekrit Planet X goofball hypothesis.
This was the best fit scenario for the non-made-up data.

[Elind]

This means that Bush is even stupider than I ever imagined.
Whoda thunk that Elind would be the one to point this out.

:cool: You don't pay attention. He IS stupider than you imagined and I have pointed it out many times, but all you see is where I sometimes sound as if I agree with something he says. When he is right it is normally for the wrong reasons, is all.

[Cicero]

Do you just not deal with reality often or is your day job down on some sports field moving goalposts?

Five years ago, Bush 43 and his administration, and Tony Blair, and the UN knew that Saddam was not likely to have much in the way of WMDs - and they knew how to keep Saddam in check so that more intel could be gathered - and Blix and his inspectors were doing just that. Unequivocal knowledge is out of the realm of possibility. To expect otherwise is not believable, to demand if from others is dishonest.



This was not some kind of sooper-sekrit Planet X goofball hypothesis.
This was the best fit scenario for the non-made-up data.

Moving goalposts. Building straw men. Creating bogeyman. Making Hobson's choices. I am exhausted!

If Iran, which has superior intel on Iraq then the US, thought Saddam had WOMD's, which they must have since they left him alone after the the 1980's, why would the US dismiss Saddam's own proclamation out of hand? "Curveball" was also confirming Saddam's WOMD program.

But as I have already stated, I never believed from the information shown back in 2003 that the US had tangible proof of these weapons. But taking out Saddam's regime was correct regardless of the WOMD's. Why Bush 41 went to war with Iraq in 1991 only to save Kuwait, and then settled for anything less than unconditional surrender, was an incredible blunder.

[fishbob]

But as I have already stated, I never believed from the information shown back in 2003 that the US had tangible proof of these weapons. But taking out Saddam's regime was correct regardless of the WOMD's. Why Bush 41 went to war with Iraq in 1991 only to save Kuwait, and then settled for anything less than unconditional surrender, was an incredible blunder.

I disagree.

While Saddam was in power, Iraq was under control with the no-fly zones, weapons inspections, sanctions, etc. This was an annoying but stable and managable situation. De-stabilization to remove an annoyance was the blunder.

[BenBurch]

I disagree.

While Saddam was in power, Iraq was under control with the no-fly zones, weapons inspections, sanctions, etc. This was an annoying but stable and managable situation. De-stabilization to remove an annoyance was the blunder.

AMEN.

And I supported keeping the sanctions in place except for food and medicine.

And I would have allowed them to sell oil to pay just for that.

Pretty much as Clinton had matters before the Idiot In Chief took over.

[cloudshipsrule]

While Saddam was in power, Iraq was under control with the no-fly zones, weapons inspections, sanctions, etc. This was an annoying but stable and managable situation. De-stabilization to remove an annoyance was the blunder.

History will tell....

[BenBurch]

History will tell....

Already has; The chapter is printed in blood.

[fishbob]

History will tell....

My analysis and prognostification:

Strategy to date has been unsuccessful -
Tactics have often been counterproductive -
Just about used up all our dumb luck -

Not looking good.

[Elind]

I disagree.

While Saddam was in power, Iraq was under control with the no-fly zones, weapons inspections, sanctions, etc. This was an annoying but stable and managable situation. De-stabilization to remove an annoyance was the blunder.

We hear this a lot, as the fundamental argument against war. There can be many arguments against war, and about blunders, but the one that really falls flat on the facts is the above.

Sanctions were patently not working in any significant sense, except to give Saddam reason to be even harsher with his own people. Virtually every nation on the planet, with the US smelling better than all of them, was making deals behind the sanctions, and the trend was very strongly towards dropping them altogether (perhaps with some silly threat about renewing if called for).

Blix and Co. saw what Saddam wanted them to see, and would have continued to do just that, nothing, just like his successor does with Iran, for the past 5 years or so.

Saddam kicked them out whenever he wanted to, remember?

The "no fly" zones could not have been maintained much longer. People were getting a weary of that as they are of the "war on terrorism", let alone Iraq.

Saddam's kind never change. Cannot change. Today we would be seeing a race to the first bomb between Iran AND Iraq and maybe Syria too, if Saddam were still in control.

[fishbob]

The sanctions process certainly had a lot of holes in it, and it needed work, but stability was being maintained.

Blix and company saw much more than you are allowing here. And the process, although frustrating, maintained stability.

None of our guys died enforcing the no-fly zones, and I have heard of no reason that they could not have been maintained.

I am kinda tired of the nucular fearmongering. Nobody expected Saddam to change. Turns out Saddam didn't have a bomb in the works, and nothing we have done in Iraq has changed what Iran and Syria are up to. Saddam was an annoyance, but not the threat that the destabilized Iraq is now.

Mr. High-Roller Bush was feeling lucky when he bet his political capital on rolling the Iraq dice.
This seems like a very large blunder to some of us who work for a living and clean up the messes.

[Kestrel]

We hear this a lot, as the fundamental argument against war. There can be many arguments against war, and about blunders, but the one that really falls flat on the facts is the above.

Sanctions were patently not working in any significant sense, except to give Saddam reason to be even harsher with his own people. Virtually every nation on the planet, with the US smelling better than all of them, was making deals behind the sanctions, and the trend was very strongly towards dropping them altogether (perhaps with some silly threat about renewing if called for).

Blix and Co. saw what Saddam wanted them to see, and would have continued to do just that, nothing, just like his successor does with Iran, for the past 5 years or so.

Saddam kicked them out whenever he wanted to, remember?

The "no fly" zones could not have been maintained much longer. People were getting a weary of that as they are of the "war on terrorism", let alone Iraq.

Saddam's kind never change. Cannot change. Today we would be seeing a race to the first bomb between Iran AND Iraq and maybe Syria too, if Saddam were still in control.

You are assuming that once any of the sanctions were dropped, all sanctions against Iraq would be dropped. The oil embargo may have been lifted along with some other economic sanctions. Iraq would not however have free access to advanced weapons technology and nuclear material.

[Elind]

The sanctions process certainly had a lot of holes in it, and it needed work, but stability was being maintained.

But you miss the point, that sanction were not working as you suggest and could never have been maintained to this day.

Blix and company saw much more than you are allowing here. And the process, although frustrating, maintained stability.


Blix came to think he was a political mediator, if you read his comments. The stability that you see was an illusion controlled by Saddam.

None of our guys died enforcing the no-fly zones, and I have heard of no reason that they could not have been maintained.

Now we can speculate, but I'd have bet a bundle that with the bounty Saddam placed on shooting down our planes, real life dictates he would have succeeded soon enough.

I am kinda tired of the nucular fearmongering. Nobody expected Saddam to change. Turns out Saddam didn't have a bomb in the works, and nothing we have done in Iraq has changed what Iran and Syria are up to. Saddam was an annoyance, but not the threat that the destabilized Iraq is now.

You are correct in the last part, but you assume that the status quo would have continued indefinitely, or as long as WE wanted it to. I don't think so, particularly given the fact that the Russians and Chinese are back to supporting anyone that causes grief to the US, and they were doing it back then.

Mr. High-Roller Bush was feeling lucky when he bet his political capital on rolling the Iraq dice.
This seems like a very large blunder to some of us who work for a living and clean up the messes.

Yes, he, uhh, believed uhh, that uhh, the uhh folk in Iraqq, uhh would all uhh become civilized, uhh when god given uhh democracy, uhh was shown to uhh them.

[Elind]

You are assuming that once any of the sanctions were dropped, all sanctions against Iraq would be dropped. The oil embargo may have been lifted along with some other economic sanctions. Iraq would not however have free access to advanced weapons technology and nuclear material.

Give me a break. I assume something based on real life experience, not to mention history. You assume something based on wishful thinking, as if N. Korea or Pakistan or anyone else with cash in suitcases doesn't have access to whatever they want. Grow up kid.

Here is something more relevant, that you probably think is too biased to read.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120389990086289395.html

[fishbob]

numbered for my convenience:
1 - But you miss the point, that sanction were not working as you suggest and could never have been maintained to this day.

2 - Blix came to think he was a political mediator, if you read his comments. The stability that you see was an illusion controlled by Saddam.

3 - Now we can speculate, but I'd have bet a bundle that with the bounty Saddam placed on shooting down our planes, real life dictates he would have succeeded soon enough.

4 - You are correct in the last part, but you assume that the status quo would have continued indefinitely, or as long as WE wanted it to. I don't think so, particularly given the fact that the Russians and Chinese are back to supporting anyone that causes grief to the US, and they were doing it back then.

5 - Yes, he, uhh, believed uhh, that uhh, the uhh folk in Iraqq, uhh would all uhh become civilized, uhh when god given uhh democracy, uhh was shown to uhh them.

1 - I was not suggesting that the sanctions were working well - I know there were problems, but not necessarily unmanagable problems. I was suggesting that the program could have been modified and managed so that stability could be maintained - if the purpose was not to punish Saddam, but to contain him. Oops - I forgot that you gotta punish evil-doers.
On what do you base your assertion that sanctions could not have been maintained?

2 - Again, on what do you base your assertion that the inspections were part of an illusion maintained by Saddam? Saddam was occupied with gamesmanship in the inspections - showing Iran that he was not weak, while cooperating just barely enough with us - but he was occupied and contained for quite a bit less than a billion bucks a week, and none of our guys were dying.

3 - Possible, but quite a few thousand fewer dead and injured than we have sustained in the blunder.

4 - Certainly the status quo would not have continued indefinitely, but careful management could have maintained some level of stability in the region while the situation evolved. I would speculate that Iraq and the region would be a bit more hospitable to US interests if the invasion and occupation had not been selected. Heck, we might have even had enough resources to devote to Afganistan do some good there.

5 - But stability is not sexy enough or profitable enough to people with propaganda to catapult.