[merged] Obama's Memorial Day Gaffes

[skeptical]

I don't know you or your track record of posting here or in other political forums, perhaps you treat all silly little gaffes and puff jobs equally harmless and have the same nonchalant attitude about them no matter who the speaker.

I think silly gaffes are silly gaffes, no matter who makes them. If McCain, or Hillary, or whoever makes a mistake, its just a mistake. I see no reason to treat a candidate as if they have to be a foolproof automaton, nor do I see any reason for the electorate to be reduced to absolute banality when there are legitimate reasons to oppose all of the remaining candidates.


However, I find many of the people who are defending Obama's gaffes to the death are quick to jump on other politicians for similar mistakes. If that doesn't describe you, then I would say that you aren't an Obamaniac. But I will say, that as an intelligent political observer you might admit that there is indeed such a strain in many Obama devotees.

There are people who will defend any candidate no matter what, and I don't consider myself one of them. I will make no bones that of the remaining 3 candidates, I prefer Obama, but as someone who typically votes Democrat I think that Hillary stands a better chance as the Dem candidate. I like McCain in some respects, and not in others. Obama certainly has staunch supporters, no doubt. Besides being the first African American with a legitimate chance to be President, he is young and charismatic, that excites people.

So yes, there are people who will of course support him through almost any incident. However, I would expect you will admit that the vitriol directed against Obama over what is truly an insignificant issue is ludicrous, and telling.

[skeptical]

I think that's a cheap shot. I don't know how old BPSCG is or care that he has direct experience of Reagan. BPSCG is a sharp observer of the political scene and argues his case well. He's as up-to-date as any whipper-snapper on these here fora and woe unto him who goes into battle with him without a well-honed sword.

Why is that a cheap shot? The same people who revere Reagan are the same ones who are calling Obama a liar and calling into question his "character" over a mistake in a story that pales in comparison to the sorts of out and out fantasies that made Reagan "charming".

I don't see what is cheap about pointing out the hypocrisy of the right wing noise machine making hay over Obama's gaffe when the most popular Republican President of the past generation was well known for flat out making up stories out of whole cloth, including stories about being in Germany in WWII when he never left the states. The hypocrisy factor certainly seems relevant I would think.

[gdnp]

I still do not see the parallel between Obama's anecdote and Hillary's Bosnia quote.

In Obama's case he was recounting information told to him about which he had no first hand knowledge. The errors were trivial and immaterial to the point he was trying to make.

In Hillary's case she was reporting and incident that she claimed to have experienced, where the evidence showed it never happened. If, in fact, she dodged bullets while landing in Kosovo and incorrectly reported it as Bosnia, no big deal. If, on the other hand, she never had to run from a plane as she claimed, then it would suggest that she intentionally fabricated the incident for the purpose of demonstrating that she has been "tested under fire", reinforcing the point that she will be "ready from day 1" while Obama is not similarly qualified.

I don't see how I can make the distinction more clear. If Obama critics cannot see the difference between an apparently intentional fabrication (I suppose it could have been a hallucination) on the part of Hillary Clinton and a trivial and apparently unintentional error on the part of Barak Obama, I see little hope for rational discourse.

[Dr Adequate]

We're not done yet?

[SezMe]

Why is that a cheap shot? The same people who revere Reagan are the same ones who are calling Obama a liar and calling into question his "character" over a mistake in a story that pales in comparison to the sorts of out and out fantasies that made Reagan "charming".

I don't see what is cheap about pointing out the hypocrisy of the right wing noise machine making hay over Obama's gaffe when the most popular Republican President of the past generation was well known for flat out making up stories out of whole cloth, including stories about being in Germany in WWII when he never left the states. The hypocrisy factor certainly seems relevant I would think.
I agree with what you have written but, alas, it has absolutely nothing to do with why I considered the post in question a cheap shot.

[boloboffin]

We're not done yet?

No, because some people never learn (http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/9609.html).

Be sure to go on to the original page. :dig:

[Pookster]

No, he was at that time trying to not lose a star or his entire command. Eisenhower was on the verge of firing him for his attitude towards Britain's Field Marshal Montgomery.

I'm seeing a yes and a no in that answer, I think. Patton was in command of the Third Army. Now, I'll be the first to admit my knowledge of military history is rather limited, but wouldn't this include a significant number of units and divisions?

[Pookster]

You didn't misread it. It was Gramps that said said the panhandler was black. But that wasn't what I was accused of lying about. It was this post by Undesired_Walrus He/she used a snip of my previous post and accused me of fabricating the comment

U_W's snip of my post

U_W's accusation

I see what you're saying now. Looking back at the specific words (that I've bolded) that U-W quoted from your post below as they were made, you're correct ...

"This is the pattern with Obama, he calls his white grandmother a racist because she was afraid of an aggressive black panhandler"

His grandfather did portray her as afraid of an aggressive panhandler because he was black.

[Upchurch]

I think that's a cheap shot. I don't know how old BPSCG is or care that he has direct experience of Reagan. BPSCG is a sharp observer of the political scene and argues his case well. He's as up-to-date as any whipper-snapper on these here fora and woe unto him who goes into battle with him without a well-honed sword.
Usually true. Unfortunately, BPSCG is quick to jump to conclusions based essentially on internet rumor (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3686777#post3686777) where Obama is concerned:
Ayers hosted the campaign kickoff fundraiser for Obama's first State Senate run.
The only support I found for this claim online was in anonymous forum boards and in comment sections of articles. I asked BPSCG to support his claim and he linked to an article that, at best, showed that Ayres had personally donated $200 to Obama's second State Senate run, which is a far cry from hosting a fundraiser in his home.

BPSCG is a good guy, but he is determined to badmouth Obama regardless of the facts of the particular issue.

[Pookster]

Just as the sniper issue with Hillary or the Iraq misstatement by McCain was fodder for political discussion this is also a part of the picture of a blank slate candidate. He didn't tell this story around a campfire, he told, as a presidential candidate, to a political gathering using the effect of mental trauma to his uncle as the context of his attack on McCain's treatment of vets. That makes it more than a family anecdote, that makes it a campaign issue.

I agree it's fodder for political discussion. It's the absurdity of the level of discussion I object to. Hillary's story was firsthand experience. It's something she claims she experienced. She knows whether the story is real or not. Obama's story is secondhand at best. Unless he had a real reason to believe his uncle would lie about something like that, or had been caught lying about significant things in the past, then a reasonable person would tend to give the benefit of the doubt.

I don't verify everything my husband has told me about his past. He's never given me a reason to doubt his veracity in that regard. Some of it might not be accurate, but there's no evidence of that being the case. In this case, there's no evidence the story isn't true either. For some to outright claim it's a tall tale because of a misstatement just seems a bit much to me. I'm not saying this because I support Obama either. I'd be calling people out for this type of thing if it involved McCain as well. Clinton got caught with something she supposedly experienced herself, which is a completely different thing.

[Lonewulf]

Usually true. Unfortunately, BPSCG is quick to jump to conclusions based essentially on internet rumor (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3686777#post3686777) where Obama is concerned:
Ayers hosted the campaign kickoff fundraiser for Obama's first State Senate run.
The only support I found for this claim online was in anonymous forum boards and in comment sections of articles. I asked BPSCG to support his claim and he linked to an article that, at best, showed that Ayres had personally donated $200 to Obama's second State Senate run, which is a far cry from hosting a fundraiser in his home.

BPSCG is a good guy, but he is determined to badmouth Obama regardless of the facts of the particular issue.Everyone needs a hobby.

[Upchurch]

Beats workin'.

[chipmunk stew]

I think that's a cheap shot. I don't know how old BPSCG is or care that he has direct experience of Reagan. BPSCG is a sharp observer of the political scene and argues his case well. He's as up-to-date as any whipper-snapper on these here fora and woe unto him who goes into battle with him without a well-honed sword.
It's not a cheap shot at all. BPSCG is a Reagan admirer. If, in BPSCG's eyes, Reagan's character was not diminished by Reagan's gaffes and whoppers, then he has no grounds to judge Obama's character on this or similar gaffes.

[chipmunk stew]

I agree with what you have written but, alas, it has absolutely nothing to do with why I considered the post in question a cheap shot.
If you think it was a cheap shot about his age, then you didn't read the post right. Daredelvis was saying "someone old enough to remember the Reagan years", moreso than someone younger, should know better than to make hay out of this gaffe.

[BeAChooser]

Check out here. They have a video to the Q&A which has Obama giving the reported upon response. It's hard to hear but it sounds like he said Auschwitz and the rest of the statement is in line with the reporters' account.

It's not hard to hear at all. See the video from CNN (the second update). In it he very clearly said EXACTLY what was reported ... "I had a uncle ... who was one of the ... who was part of the first America troops to go into Auschwitz ... and liberate the concentration camps." Now mind you, we don't know what he was told as a child. Obama could honestly believe this is what the uncle did due to misremembering childhood memories (I do that all the time) or being told things by the adults at the time that were embellished if not outright false (that happened to me too). And it was an off the cuff statement ... not part of the prepared speech so his staff can't be blamed for missing this inaccuracy. But I still dislike politicians trying to twang our heart strings using personal anecdotes that aren't personal but second or third hand. Especially coming from someone who wants to pull out of Iraq willy-nilly, regardless of what the troops want to do in Iraq or what the consequences might be if we did pull out in such a manner.

[Tricky]

But I still dislike politicians trying to twang our heart strings using personal anecdotes that aren't personal but second or third hand.
Yeah, I wasn't that fond of Ronald Reagan either.
Especially coming from someone who wants to pull out of Iraq willy-nilly, regardless of what the troops want to do in Iraq or what the consequences might be if we did pull out in such a manner.
Yeah, I'm not that fond of Ron Paul either.

[SezMe]

If you think it was a cheap shot about his age, then you didn't read the post right. Daredelvis was saying "someone old enough to remember the Reagan years", moreso than someone younger, should know better than to make hay out of this gaffe.
That's not how I read it, but I agree that might be what he intended to say. If so, I withdraw my comment.

[gdnp]

Especially coming from someone who wants to pull out of Iraq willy-nilly, regardless of what the troops want to do in Iraq or what the consequences might be if we did pull out in such a manner.

Off topic, but what the troops "want" to do in Iraq is irrelevant. Some may want to come home regardless of the consequences, some may want to stay but avoid conflict regardless of the consequences, and some may wish to raze the entire country and exterminate the population regardless of the consequences.

They are troops. They are supposed to follow the legitimate orders of their superiors. They don't get to choose their missions. Sorry.

To suggest that Obama has disregarded the possible consequences of withdrawl is absurd. I trust he has discussed this policy with his advisers, weighed the possible consequences of staying, weighed the possible consequences of escalation, and weighed the possible consequences of pulling out on a variety of different timetables. His estimation of these consequences may be incorrect. That would not be surprising. The consequences of almost every decision the Bush administration has made have been worse than they predicted, up to and including the Surge.

[daredelvis]

That's not how I read it, but I agree that might be what he intended to say. If so, I withdraw my comment.

I am old enough to remember the Regan years, and I try to minimize insulting myself (I let my actions do that for me). I think BPSCG's love of Reagen is no secret, and that this love is based (at least partially) on Ronald Reagan's almost single handed defeat of the commies during BPSCG's life. I assume it is this quality of the great Reagan that leads him to have given old Ron a pass on all of Ron's embellished personal stories while condemning Obama as being totally unfit for office and totally lacking in character for having the wrong camp name in the family lore he chose to share. There is nothing to this story, and the fact that some see as one of the greatest lies told to the American people belies their bias (more like blind rage). These Obama "gaffes" de jour are just so much sardoodledom.

The cheap shot, if you want to know the truth, was insinuating he is a Malkin bot.

Daredelvis

[gdnp]

I think BPSCG's love of Reagen is no secret, and that this love is based (at least partially) on Ronald Reagan's almost single handed defeat of the commies during BPSCG's life.

LOL. Sorry, I must have missed that movie. Was it before or after Bedtime for Bonzo?

[BeAChooser]

what the troops "want" to do in Iraq is irrelevant.

Not if the argument being made by a politician is that what he's going to do in Iraq is for the benefit of the troops. If he gives that as a reason, and Obama has, then what the troops want in Iraq is most certainly relevant.

Furthermore, Obama has indicated he's not even going to listen to our generals. The generals say we are winning in Iraq and we should stay the course. They say the surge has worked, that al-Qaeda in Iraq is close to defeat, that the Iraqi military is starting to perform as expected, that the government is getting increasingly widespread support from all factions, and warn that if we leave the progress we've made thus far may fall apart quickly.

Yet Obama says he's going to withdraw our troops as soon as possible, regardless. His mind is clearly made up. And keep in mind that Harry Reid has also said he won't listen to Petraeus. In fact, Reid and Nancy Pelosi ... the top democrats in both houses ... called Petraeus a liar. Reid said he was incompetent. Tell me, do you agree with them? Because I didn't hear Obama, who also got to question Petraeus, chastise his colleagues for saying that. Of course, Obama stayed in the committee meeting where Petraeus was questioned just long enough to ask one question before leaving. Because he's already made up his mind.

To suggest that Obama has disregarded the possible consequences of withdrawl is absurd.

It's not absurd at all. He's indicated quite clearly that his mind is already made up about the war regardless what anyone tells him and regardless of what the generals tell him about the current situation. I say, and I think most Americans will agree, that what the generals say is going on in Iraq and want they want to do is most certainly relevant to this debate. It's not something Obama should ignore ... not if he really does care about those consequences ... not if he wants our support.

The consequences of almost every decision the Bush administration has made have been worse than they predicted, up to and including the Surge.

Well you just lost all credibility with that statement. So you think the surge hasn't worked? Guess you aren't willing to listen either. :D

[Darth Rotor]

I know of no such pointless or gratuitous attacks I have made against you.
Here: You expose your ignorance

When I did no such thing, but you were looking for an excuse to be insulting. I am fully aware of the vitriol in American politics, have even commented on it in some forum discussion, but you attempted to extrapolate a meaning to my words that were not there, all for the purposes of being nasty. And wrong, given my familiarity with American history.

How nice, to have a stalker.

Let me tell you how things were a bit different before the 24/7 news cycle. Politicians got away with a bit more than they can now. The volume of spit and vitriol has increased. The accessibility to is has also increased. Editors were able to scuplt the tone of their papers with some care, picking their spots to fire off some scathing commentary, while being discrete enough to leave well enough alone about JFK's reliance on pain killers, for instance. Then again, "FDR lied us and deceived us into his war" was a common complaint in the 1940's.

That there has always been vitriol does not mean it's always been of the low quality of discourse that I presented as an example. The sheer volume of the present day, in terms of speed, tone and variable content is staggering. Not enough time in the day to take it all in.

DR

[Kestrel]

The question I have is what are the chances of the uncle a PFC being a part of this Recon unit that actually entered the camp, stayed for 3 hours and then was relieved by units of the 4th Armored Division a division that also claims credit for the liberation? Army Recon is a pretty tough group of warriors and are not prone to the type of mental trauma attributed to the uncle from a 3 hour, assuming he was part of this platoon, stay in the camp.

According to the folks running the same web site you are quoting (http://www.89infdivww2.org/), he was there.

Concerning the service of Mr. Charles Payne: C.T. Payne was a soldier in the 89th Infantry Division. He served in the 355th Infantry Regiment, Company K. The 355th Infantry Regiment was the unit to liberate Ohrdruf. Mr. Payne was there.

For those who seek to minimize the horrors of Ohrdruf since it was a 'work' camp and not a 'death' camp, we have but one word: shame. Ironically, this argument has been made to us time and time again by various Holocaust-deniers and other pro-Nazi groups. We will let the testimony of survivors and veterans speak for themselves.

[boloboffin]

It seems like 3 hours was enough to see horrific things.

Plenty of people come back from war with PTSD without having to spend three hours in a concentration camp.

[TriskettheKid]

How long was Eisenhower in Buchenwald before he vomited?

I think 3 hours was plenty of time to see some pretty awful things.

[Texas]

According to the folks running the same web site you are quoting (http://www.89infdivww2.org/), he was there.He was there but only a single platoon of the 89th division entered the camp for 3 hours and then was relieved by the 4th Armored division. My question was if he was a member of the specific recon unit that entered the camp.

[Texas]

How long was Eisenhower in Buchenwald before he vomited?

I think 3 hours was plenty of time to see some pretty awful things.

I don't know but how long did Ike stay in his house when he came home because of it?

[Dr Adequate]

He was there but only a single platoon of the 89th division entered the camp for 3 hours and then was relieved by the 4th Armored division. My question was if he was a member of the specific recon unit that entered the camp. And the quote seems to answer that question:

"Concerning the service of Mr. Charles Payne: C.T. Payne was a soldier in the 89th Infantry Division. He served in the 355th Infantry Regiment, Company K. The 355th Infantry Regiment was the unit to liberate Ohrdruf. Mr. Payne was there."

[Upchurch]

I don't know but how long did Ike stay in his house when he came home because of it?
Well, you've convinced me. There is no way Obama's great-uncle could have possibly seen something horrible in WWII, therefore Obama's point about taking care of soldiers with PTSD is totally invalidated.

Thanks to you and Beeps for showing me what a jerk Obama is for caring about wussy soldiers who probably who act crazy to get attention. Can't believe I almost voted for that ***.

Thanks again!

[Lonewulf]

Upchurch, while I normally respect you, was there any real reason to go that far a length to draw out a straw man?

[gdnp]

Not if the argument being made by a politician is that what he's going to do in Iraq is for the benefit of the troops. If he gives that as a reason, and Obama has, then what the troops want in Iraq is most certainly relevant.The US Iraq policy should be for the benefit of the US, the Iraqi people, and overall world peace and stability. It is the American president's responsibility to make sure that the lives of American troops are not placed in jeopardy unnecessarily. There is a strong bias of troops everywhere to believe in their mission. No one wants to think that what they do is pointless, especially if they might die doing it.

Furthermore, Obama has indicated he's not even going to listen to our generals. The generals say we are winning in Iraq and we should stay the course. They say the surge has worked, that al-Qaeda in Iraq is close to defeat, that the Iraqi military is starting to perform as expected, that the government is getting increasingly widespread support from all factions, and warn that if we leave the progress we've made thus far may fall apart quickly.
Now that the generals who formulated the previous failed policy have been forced out, and the generals that disagreed with the current administration policy have been forced out, we are supposed to accept the pronouncements of the current generals as gospel, unopen to challenge? I don't think so.

It's not absurd at all. He's indicated quite clearly that his mind is already made up about the war regardless what anyone tells him and regardless of what the generals tell him about the current situation.

really? perhaps you could provide me with the Obama quote or quotes that has led you to this conclusion.

I say, and I think most Americans will agree, that what the generals say is going on in Iraq and want they want to do is most certainly relevant to this debate. It's not something Obama should ignore ... not if he really does care about those consequences ... not if he wants our support.

Again, please provide quotes where I or Obama has stated the opinions of the generals are not relevant. If Obama chooses to ignore, or perhaps a better term would be override, the opinions of the generals, then how does that make him different from GWB, who ignored the generals who claimed that a much larger invasion force was necessary? Is this not the prerogative of the Commander in Chief?

Well you just lost all credibility with that statement. So you think the surge hasn't worked? Guess you aren't willing to listen either. :DAnother straw man. I never said that the surge hasn't worked. I said that there were consequences to every decision that were worse than predicted.

In fact, the success of the surge has exceeded my expectations. But it has fallen short of at least some of the claims of the Bush administration. You may recall, for example, that the surge was supposed to be temporary, with the troops then withdrawn. Yet this spring they decided that if we did not "pause" the drawdown after an initial token number of troops were withdrawn the gains they had achieved might be lost. They have thus underestimated the costs monetarily, in lives disrupted, and in our overall military readiness.

I suppose the alternative interpretation is that Bush knew all along that a larger number of troops would be required indefinitely, and presented it as a surge because he knew that congress and the American people would be more resistant if it were presented as a long-term escalation rather than a surge. If so, it's one of the few intelligent decisions he has made, as the increased troop numbers, and more importantly the way they have been deployed, does seem to have had a positive effect.

[Upchurch]

Upchurch, while I normally respect you, was there any real reason to go that far a length to draw out a straw man?
Satire, actually.

The reason was to point out that this entire line of argument is inconsequential. It speaks nothing to the policy issue in which it was brought up. It speaks nothing to the integrity of Obama as either a man or a presidential candidate.

My satire, then, is questioning the purpose in fact checking down to determining the amount of time the uncle was there 60 years ago.

[SezMe]

Not if the argument being made by a politician is that what he's going to do in Iraq is for the benefit of the troops. If he gives that as a reason, and Obama has, then what the troops want in Iraq is most certainly relevant.
Speaking of credibility problems, that is NOT what Obama said. Let's turn to the record from his own web site (http://www.barackobama.com/2007/09/20/obama_statement_on_feingoldrei.php):

This is the best policy for our troops ...

He did not say he was doing it for benefit of the troops, he said it is the best policy for the troops. There's a world of difference between those two statements. You have cause and effect confused. You think his Iraq policy is caused by his wanting to benefit the troops whereas, in fact, the effect of his Iraq policy has the added bonus of benefiting the troops.

[aerosolben]

I don't know but how long did Ike stay in his house when he came home because of it?
The quote was
"I had a uncle who was one of the, who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camps and the story in our family was is that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn’t leave the house for six months,"
Bolding is mine.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but I take that particular phrase to mean the Obama himself has some doubts about the veracity of that part of the story. It's clearly a transitional phrase separating the sentence into two pieces. He could just be ad-libbing some filler while speaking, but considering your skeptical reaction, it is not unreasonable to think Obama may have reacted the same way and inserted a qualifier while still retelling the story the way it was told to him. Sort of a "I'm not sure if this is exactly how it went down, but my (great-)uncle was definitely deeply affected by what he saw in the camp".

[Pookster]

Upchurch, while I normally respect you, was there any real reason to go that far a length to draw out a straw man?

While I don't care for the game that's being played by some in this thread, it just seemed like he was taking a turn (at satire at least).

Don't hate the player ...

[Upchurch]

I was trying to be funny, in a sarcastic sort of way. Can't win 'em all.

Ultimately, though, I was also trying to ask what the point of all this was. What are Texas and BPSCG trying to accomplish with this thread?

[Pookster]

I was trying to be funny, in a sarcastic sort of way. Can't win 'em all.

I thought it was a terrific reply. Sometimes it takes throwing the game in others face to get them to see the silliness of it.


Ultimately, though, I was also trying to ask what the point of all this was. What are Texas and BPSCG trying to accomplish with this thread?

It's a very good question too.

[varwoche]

BeAChooser restated for brevity: I still dislike politicians trying to twang our heart strings using personal anecdotes that aren't personal but second or third hand. Especially coming from someone who wants to pull out of Iraq willy-nilly, regardless of what the troops want to do in Iraq or what the consequences might be if we did pull out in such a manner I disagree with.

[BeAChooser]

The US Iraq policy should be for the benefit of the US, the Iraqi people, and overall world peace and stability.

It is ... and will even be viewed that way by most historians a few decades hence once the dust settles. And I find it curious that you say US policy should be for the benefit of the Iraqi people when Obama was perfectly content leaving Saddam and his brutal regime in place. :)

Quote:
Furthermore, Obama has indicated he's not even going to listen to our generals. The generals say we are winning in Iraq and we should stay the course. They say the surge has worked, that al-Qaeda in Iraq is close to defeat, that the Iraqi military is starting to perform as expected, that the government is getting increasingly widespread support from all factions, and warn that if we leave the progress we've made thus far may fall apart quickly.

Now that the generals who formulated the previous failed policy have been forced out, and the generals that disagreed with the current administration policy have been forced out, we are supposed to accept the pronouncements of the current generals as gospel, unopen to challenge?

Go ahead ... challenge them. But challenge them with facts, not your emotions and political agenda. And the facts are that the surge has worked. al-Qaeda in Iraq has indeed been decimated. Both Shiites and Sunnis are now going after al-Qaeda as well. The Iraqi Army is performing increasingly well and more and more independently. The Iraqi Army is now going head to head against the troublesome, Iranian backed, militias. The Iraqi government is now getting support from both sides of Iraq's political aisle and has successfully weathered a number of crises. Attacks and casualties are way down. The economy is growing. In fact, some areas of the country are doing quite well compared to what they were doing under Saddam. Just ask the Kurds.

The chief problem now facing us and the Iraqis are the arms being shipped in from Iran ... from a terrorist supporting dictatorship that strangely enough Obama wants to sit down and negotiate with without preconditions. :)


Quote:
It's not absurd at all. He's indicated quite clearly that his mind is already made up about the war regardless what anyone tells him and regardless of what the generals tell him about the current situation.

really? perhaps you could provide me with the Obama quote or quotes that has led you to this conclusion.

Well before I get to quotes, just look at his actions. General Patreaus comes before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Obama asks just one question during his alloted 7 minutes. http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/08/raw-data-obamas-question-and-answer-at-petraeus-crocker-hearing/ He spent most of his time essentually lecturing General Patreaus and Ambassador Crocker about how bad the war has gone and even stating as facts things that are not true at all (like his statement that before we went in al-qaeda was not in Iraq). Then he leaves to go campaign ... too busy to stick around and hear the rest of what Patreaus had to say. Don't you think the country would have been better served if he'd taken the opportunity to pick Patraeus' brain regarding the current state of affairs in Iraq and listen to what Patreaus thought the solution to the problem of Iraq might be? To me, this clearly demonstrates Obama has no real interest in listening to the generals and those who, unlike Obama, actually spent a great deal of time in Iraq over the past 3 years.

Now for some quotes. Start with his website. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

"The goal of the surge was to create space for Iraq's political leaders to reach an agreement to end Iraq's civil war. At great cost, our troops have helped reduce violence in some areas of Iraq, but even those reductions do not get us below the unsustainable levels of violence of mid-2006. Moreover, Iraq's political leaders have made no progress in resolving the political differences at the heart of their civil war."

Now not only is the above false (the political leaders have made considerable progress and the surge by most accounts has been the turning point in the war against al-Qaeda). It also paints the picture that the war is lost which also is at odds with what those on the ground in Iraq say (and not just the generals).

And Obama's solution (from his website):

"Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

I don't know about you, but I read that as his mind begin made up. The generals are already telling him that's not what he should do but he clearly isn't listening. He's committed himself ... because his constituency wants an immediate withdrawal, regardless of consequences. Or are you claiming he'll tell you one thing now to get elected then do something quite different later on? If you are, I think you misread Obama.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/27/dnc-ratchets-up-attacks-on-mccain/ "Asked what he would do if Petraeus recommended against withdrawing troops from Iraq — an Obama campaign pledge — Obama said “it would be stupid” not to listen, but in the end, he would keep the goal of withdrawing troops. ... snip ... “What I would do is I would say (BAC - to the generals) — what I will do is say, ‘We have a new mission. It is my strategic assessment that we have to provide a time table to the Iraqi government. I want you to tell me how best to execute this new assignment, and I am happy to listen to the tactical considerations and any ideas you have, but what I will not do is to continue to let the Iraqi government off the hook and allow them to put our foreign policy on ice while they dither about making decisions about how they’re going to cooperate with each other.’ ” In other words, even if the generals tell him that's a bad idea. :)

please provide quotes where I or Obama has stated the opinions of the generals are not relevant.

I think he just did that above.

If Obama chooses to ignore, or perhaps a better term would be override, the opinions of the generals, then how does that make him different from GWB, who ignored the generals who claimed that a much larger invasion force was necessary? Is this not the prerogative of the Commander in Chief?

General Tommy Franks stated in his book that prior to initiating hostilities, Bush polled his military commanders and asked them if they had the forces they needed to accomplish the mission ... and they all responded "yes". What you are referring to is just a FEW officers who insisted that a much larger force was necessary. Of course, doing what they wanted would have significantly delayed the invasion (because we didn't have those forces readily available) and that would have allowed Saddam even more time to prepare. It would have put even greater stress on the military and families of those forces by making it more difficult to maintain the levels for any length of time. It would have provided even more reason for Iraqis to think we were an occupying force and react negatively. And it would have increased the number of targets (US soldiers) and thus, possibly, the casualty rate. Now that's not to say that some things couldn't have been done different but Bush made a reasonable compromise by listening to the majority opinion. That is NOT what Obama is now doing.

I never said that the surge hasn't worked.

"The consequences of almost every decision the Bush administration has made have been worse than they predicted, up to and including the Surge."

Gee ... I wonder why I misunderstood you. :)

By the way ... I'm still curious ... do you agree with Reid and Pelosi that General Patraeus is a liar? Do you agree with Pelosi that the reason the surge has worked is because of the "goodwill" of Iran? :D

[Upchurch]

Those of us who like Obama are accused of putting him on a messiah-like pedestal. It seems to me that these accusations come from those who seem hell-bent on vilifying him. On this board that I've participated in, we've got this thread, Jerome's bribery thread, and BPSCG's Bill Ayers' campaign kick-off fundraiser. None of which have stood up to any substance under scrutiny.

So, what is going on here? There are substantive policy and/or issue driven complaints that one could legitimately have with Obama. Why are we discussing this baloney?

[Upchurch]

It is ... and will even be viewed that way by most historians a few decades hence once the dust settles.
Put your bid in for the million now, oh sooth sayer! ;)

[BeAChooser]

Put your bid in for the million now, oh sooth sayer! ;)

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g7-MvS2qni5jzPaNg7N7S_vxeDBg "Iraqi city breathes again as shadow of Al-Qaeda lifted"

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5joOXjMMzCcZfxGTM6zErvDD4iMGA "Iraqi troops kill 11 suspected Qaeda fighters"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080530/ts_nm/usa_qaeda_cia_dc;_ylt=AvNv_D80.fe1XBM0wWzcStZ34T0D " Al Qaeda near defeat, on defensive: CIA chief ... snip ... WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Al Qaeda is essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the world, CIA Director Michael Hayden said in a Washington Post interview published on Friday."

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=26836&Cr=iraq&Cr1= "New hope for Iraq after years of war, Secretary-General tells Compact meeting, 29 May 2008 – Iraq is making “notable progress” in the security, political and economic fields, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told the annual review conference of the International Compact with Iraq today."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05292008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_quit_iraq_time_travelers_112963.htm?page=0 "THE QUIT-IRAQ TIME-TRAVELERS"

:D

[chipmunk stew]

General Patreaus comes before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Obama asks just one question during his alloted 7 minutes. http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/08/raw-data-obamas-question-and-answer-at-petraeus-crocker-hearing/
That's funny, I could've sworn he asked a whole bunch of questions.

Question #1a:
"Should we be successful in Mosul, should you continue, General, with the effective operations that you’ve been engaged in, assuming that in that narrow military effort we are successful, do we anticipate that there ever comes a time where Al Qaida in Iraq could not reconstitute itself?"

Question #1b:
"At what point do we say they cannot reconstitute themselves or are we saying that they’re not going to be particularly effective and the Iraqis, themselves, will be able to handle the situation?"

Question #2:
"I just want to be clear if I’m understanding. We don’t anticipate that there’s never going to be some individual or group of individuals in Iraq that might have sympathies toward Al Qaeda. Our goal is not to hunt down and eliminate every single trace, but rather to create a manageable situation where they’re not posing a threat to Iraq or using it as a base to launch attacks outside of Iraq. Is that accurate?"

Question #3:
"And I’m wondering, does that undermine confidence on the part of the Sunni tribal leaders, that they are actually going to be treated fairly and they will be able to incorporate some of these young men of military age into the Iraqi security forces?"

Question #4:
"Just as it’s fair to say that we’re not going to completely eliminate all traces of Al Qaeda in Iraq, but we want to create a manageable situation, it’s also true to say that we’re not going to eliminate all influence of Iran in Iraq, correct?

"That’s not our goal. That can’t be our definition of success, that Iran has no influence in Iraq.

"So can you define more sharply what you think would be a legitimate or fair set of circumstances in the relationship between Iran and Iraq, that would make us feel comfortable drawing down our troops?"

Question #5:
"Do we feel confident that the Iraqi government is directing these — this aid to these special groups?
Do we feel confident about that, or do we think that they’re just tacitly tolerating it? Do you have some sense of that?"

Question #6:
"If that’s the case, can you respond a little more fully to Senator Boxer’s point? If, in fact, it is known — and I’m assuming you’ve shared that information with the Maliki government — that Iran’s government has assisted in arming special groups that are doing harm to Iraqi security forces and undermining the Iraqi government, why is it that they’re being welcomed the way they were?"

Question #7:
"And so my final — and I’ll even pose this as a question and I won’t — you don’t necessarily have to answer it — maybe it’s a rhetorical question — if we were able to have the status quo in Iraq right now without U.S. troops, would that be a sufficient definition of success?

"It’s obviously not perfect. There’s still violence, there’s still some traces of Al Qaeda, Iran has influence more than we would like. But if we had the current status quo, and yet our troops had been drawn down to 30,000, would we consider that a success? Would that meet our criteria, or would that not be good enough and we’d have to devote even more resources to it?"

He spent most of his time essentually lecturing General Patreaus and Ambassador Crocker about how bad the war has gone and even stating as facts things that are not true at all (like his statement that before we went in al-qaeda was not in Iraq).
Evidence that Al-Qaeda was in Iraq before the war??? That would have been quite a shock to Saddam.

Don't you think the country would have been better served if he'd taken the opportunity to pick Patraeus' brain regarding the current state of affairs in Iraq and listen to what Patreaus thought the solution to the problem of Iraq might be?
Gee. Good thing he did take the opportunity.

[Deus Ex Machina]

What's the big deal? Maybe Obama did have an uncle who told him that. (Based on the example my father set, WWII veterans were prone to telling bald-faced lies about what they did in the war.) Maybe Obama misremembered what his uncle said. Maybe he even lied. (If you want to elect a politician who doesn't lie, then you're going to have to elect a dead one.) This whole pedantic "Gotcha" type of attack on Obama and his wife is unquestionably one of the lamest political strategies I've ever seen. If the GOP can't do better than that, then they are in deep doo-doo come November.


Big enough to have at least a perceptible effect on the US. Something like, "We are invading Iraq because they have WMDs".

You are right - it is not particularly a big deal. The problem is that a lot of the left have, for the last eight years, been beating a drum about Bush's gaffes, Bushisms and so on and about how dumb he is.

Now that they have their favored candidate and he turns out to be just as prone to dumb statements why are they not concerned that, BY THEIR OWN STANDARDS. Obama is just as dumb as the much hated GWB?

[chipmunk stew]

You are right - it is not particularly a big deal. The problem is that a lot of the left have, for the last eight years, been beating a drum about Bush's gaffes, Bushisms and so on and about how dumb he is.

Now that they have their favored candidate and he turns out to be just as prone to dumb statements why are they not concerned that, BY THEIR OWN STANDARDS. Obama is just as dumb as the much hated GWB?
:yikes:

You can't be serious.

Seriously...you can't be serious.

[Dr Adequate]

You are right - it is not particularly a big deal. The problem is that a lot of the left have, for the last eight years, been beating a drum about Bush's gaffes, Bushisms and so on and about how dumb he is.

Now that they have their favored candidate and he turns out to be just as prone to dumb statements why are they not concerned that, BY THEIR OWN STANDARDS. Obama is just as dumb as the much hated GWB? Saying "Auschwitz" when one should have said "Buchenwald" does not rise to the level of a Bushism. Nor does doing so make him "equally prone to dumb statements": Bush has made rather more. And if the right wanted to present it as such, they shouldn't have pretended that it was a deliberate lie rather than a mistake.

[Tricky]

You are right - it is not particularly a big deal. The problem is that a lot of the left have, for the last eight years, been beating a drum about Bush's gaffes, Bushisms and so on and about how dumb he is.

Now that they have their favored candidate and he turns out to be just as prone to dumb statements why are they not concerned that, BY THEIR OWN STANDARDS. Obama is just as dumb as the much hated GWB?
Maybe some do. I've said before that I don't think Bush is dumb, although he is not nearly as smart as many politicians. However, for comedy, gaffes are just fine. The problem is substituting Auschwitz for Buchenwald is simply not very funny. It doesn't even begin to approach the humor of substituting Austrian for Australian... to the Australian Prime Misnister (http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=64776)! Sure, it's an easy mistake, but it's still comedy gold.

I cannot envision anyone laughing at Obama's gaffe. Sneering, perhaps.

[gdnp]

And I find it curious that you say US policy should be for the benefit of the Iraqi people when Obama was perfectly content leaving Saddam and his brutal regime in place. I am no Saddam fan, but how many people were dying per day under his brutal regime compared to how many have died per day since the US invasion? How many car bombs went off per day? How many people were ethnically cleansed and living in internal exile? Do you really believe the average Iraqi is currently in better shape now than they were under Saddam?

Sure, we can make predictions that 5-10-100 years in the future the Iraqi people will be better off than they would have been had we left Saddam in power. How about now, 5 years after the invasion?

The chief problem now facing us and the Iraqis are the arms being shipped in from Iranyes, because it is much cheaper for the Iranians to keep us tied up in Iraq indefinitely, since as long as we are tied up there we do not have the capability of confronting them militarily. Another disastrous consequence of the Bush policy. The Iranians can spend a billion or two funding the Shiite militias and force us to spend 100 billion to combat them. Great investment on their part and not a whole lot we can do to stop them.

... from a terrorist supporting dictatorship that strangely enough Obama wants to sit down and negotiate with without preconditions.yes, because you negotiate with your enemies, not your friends. We have spent 50 years not negotiating with Cuba. How successful has that been in getting rid of Castro or improving the lot of the Cuban people?

"The goal of the surge was to create space for Iraq's political leaders to reach an agreement to end Iraq's civil war. At great cost, our troops have helped reduce violence in some areas of Iraq, but even those reductions do not get us below the unsustainable levels of violence of mid-2006. Moreover, Iraq's political leaders have made no progress in resolving the political differences at the heart of their civil war."

Now not only is the above false (the political leaders have made considerable progress and the surge by most accounts has been the turning point in the war against al-Qaeda). It also paints the picture that the war is lost which also is at odds with what those on the ground in Iraq say (and not just the generals).
was it false in September 2007 when he said it? Can you find a recent quote where he claims that the surge is a failure? If so, I will retract.

By the way ... I'm still curious ... do you agree with Reid and Pelosi that General Patraeus is a liar? Do you agree with Pelosi that the reason the surge has worked is because of the "goodwill" of Iran?
Don't know. Haven't read their quotes.

It is too soon to say why the surge has worked and whether the improvements are permanent. Others have argued that the major factor in the decrease in violence is not the surge but that the country is now almost entirely ethnically cleansed. There are few remaining mixed neighborhoods. The wresting of control of the streets from the militias is key to any redevelopment. That the Iraqi army seems to be finally starting to take on some of these duties is certainly a step in the right direction. The initial results in confronting Al Sadr in Basra looked to be disastrous, but even there things have turned around.

I have often felt that if the Iraqi insurgents truly wish to get the US out, the smartest thing they could do is lower the level of violence so that the US could pull out and then start an all-out civil war. Kind of like the peace treaty Nixon signed with the Vietnamese: if the Americans pull out the combat troops we are unlikely to intervene should a civil war break out. Could this be happening now? Possibly, but I doubt it. I think it far more likely that the Iranians prefer to keep us in Iraq so we can't attack them.

[BeAChooser]

That's funny, I could've sworn he asked a whole bunch of questions

Obama never gave General Petraeus time to answer your question #1a? He cut him off twice when he tried to answer. Instead, Obama says ... "don't mean to interrupt you, but I just want to sharpen the question". Then after Patraeus answers #1b, Obama says "I just want to be clear if I'm understanding" and restates the question a third time in a slightly different form. So it might be fair to say questions #1a, #1b and #2 are the same question. Now I'll grant that Question #3 is on a different issue ... so ok ... Obama asked Patraeus TWO questions about Iraq. :)

The other questions were asked of Ambassador Crocker and as Obama himself noted, Question #7 was a rhethorical question which Obama proceeded to answer. More of a campaign speech than anything else. Obama asks "If we had the current status quo, and yet our troops had been drawn down to 30,000, would we consider that a success?" But when Crocker responded that "Senator, I can't imagine the current status quo being sustainable with that kind of precipitous drawdown", Obama said "that wasn't the question" and added "I'm not suggesting that we yank our all our troops out all the way." Of course, drawing troops down to 30,000 or so is precisely what Obama is now suggesting. :)

Evidence that Al-Qaeda was in Iraq before the war???

Remember the terrorists who were caught, tried and convicted in a chemical bomb plot against the US embassy and Jordan government facilities in Amman? Or did you just miss that story even though it was carried by NTI's Global Security Newswire, the Associated Press, Jordanian Times, Agence France-Presse, CSPAN, The Washington Times, the San Diego Union-Tribune, The Boston Globe, CNN, USATODAY, CBS News, MSNBC, FOX News, ABC News, The National Review, Townhall, the Pittzburgh Post-Gazette, The Irish News, Powerline, FrontPageMag, Larry Elder, LittleGreenFootballs, Reuters and The Washington Post? :rolleyes:

They described themselves as al-Qaeda and said they met with al-Zarqawi (who they said planned and funded the attack) in Baghdad prior to our invasion. Those folks wanted to kill tens of thousands of innocent people. And perhaps the only reason that plot didn't succeed is that the US invasion put al-Zarqawi on the run so he couldn't devote much attention to the details of the plot.

Good thing he did take the opportunity.

No, actually he got permission to use his time early then left right after asking those few questions. I'm certain that Patraeus had a lot more to say about Iraq and Iran that Obama missed ... because he was out kissing babies. :)

[SezMe]

Go ahead ... challenge them. But challenge them with facts, not your emotions and political agenda. And the facts are that the surge has worked.
.....
Now not only is the above false (the political leaders have made considerable progress and the surge by most accounts has been the turning point in the war against al-Qaeda).

Yeah, politically things are just great. The various Iraqi factions are having a love fest....wait, Iraq Sunni bloc quits coalition (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/73B20040-C171-4C31-A0D3-2480CCF2EF18.htm).

Speaking of facts instead of emotions and agendas, I suggest something along the lines of, "Physician, heal thyself."

[gdnp]

No, actually he got permission to use his time early then left right after asking those few questions. I'm certain that Patraeus had a lot more to say about Iraq and Iran that Obama missed ... because he was out kissing babies. :)
Oh, am I am sure there is no transcript of the hearings that he might have reviewed at a later time :)

[NotJesus]

Those of us who like Obama are accused of putting him on a messiah-like pedestal. It seems to me that these accusations come from those who seem hell-bent on vilifying him. On this board that I've participated in, we've got this thread, Jerome's bribery thread, and BPSCG's Bill Ayers' campaign kick-off fundraiser. None of which have stood up to any substance under scrutiny.

So, what is going on here? There are substantive policy and/or issue driven complaints that one could legitimately have with Obama. Why are we discussing this baloney?


Because most of the real issues are losers for McCain and his supporters know it.

[SezMe]

Yesterday (Thursday, May 29) John McCain stated:

"I can tell you that it [the mission in Iraq] is succeeding," said McCain. "I can look you in the eye and tell you it's succeeding. We have drawn down to pre-surge levels."

This is factually incorrect...by about 10,000-15,000 troops. But I've searched in vain for a thread started by Brainster condemning this egregious error. Worse, this is not the first substantive error made by McCain on Iraq. Remember his repeated confusion of the Sunni and Shia? But I've similarly searched in vain for a post by BPSCG calling McCain's basic character into question over the matter.

What makes this worse is that Obama has not built his candidacy around what his uncle did in WWII but McCain has, in fact, built his candidacy around his expertise and judgement regarding Iraq. So his "misstatements" should carry much more weight than Obama's. Curiously, around here they do not. Why? Brainster? BPSCG? BeAChooser?

[Upchurch]

Yesterday (Thursday, May 29) John McCain stated:
Perhaps that deserves it's own thread?



...or several threads, if you'd like to follow the anti-Obama contingent's model around here

[gdnp]

Yesterday (Thursday, May 29) John McCain stated:

This is factually incorrect...by about 10,000-15,000 troops. But I've searched in vain for a thread started by Brainster condemning this egregious error.

The best I can tell from several sources we had about 130K troops in Iraq before the surge. The number seems to have peaked at around 170K. According to the bbc, as of April 8 we had about 160K: that doesn't look like pre-surge levels to me. I can't find a more recent reference. Have we cut another 30K in the past 2 months? Can anyone track down current levels?

[chipmunk stew]

Obama never gave General Petraeus time to answer your question #1a? He cut him off twice when he tried to answer. Instead, Obama says ... "don't mean to interrupt you, but I just want to sharpen the question". Then after Patraeus answers #1b, Obama says "I just want to be clear if I'm understanding" and restates the question a third time in a slightly different form. So it might be fair to say questions #1a, #1b and #2 are the same question. Now I'll grant that Question #3 is on a different issue ... so ok ... Obama asked Patraeus TWO questions about Iraq. :)
Clarifying questions don't count as questions? Obama only gets one question per issue? What if it's the central issue? Did Petraeus, then, only give two answers?

The other questions were asked of Ambassador Crocker
Petraeus didn't leave the room, though, did he? The latter questions were directed towards Crocker, but the two men were being questioned as a pair. Obama had seven minutes to ask questions of both men. Should he have ignored Crocker?

and as Obama himself noted, Question #7 was a rhethorical question which Obama proceeded to answer. More of a campaign speech than anything else. Obama asks "If we had the current status quo, and yet our troops had been drawn down to 30,000, would we consider that a success?" But when Crocker responded that "Senator, I can't imagine the current status quo being sustainable with that kind of precipitous drawdown", Obama said "that wasn't the question" and added "I'm not suggesting that we yank our all our troops out all the way." Of course, drawing troops down to 30,000 or so is precisely what Obama is now suggesting. :)
Funnily enough, Crocker ended by echoing Obama's central point--that a sustainable, if "sloppy", status quo, with a drastically reduced US troop force, is a realistic, attainable goal.

Remember the terrorists who were caught, tried and convicted in a chemical bomb plot against the US embassy and Jordan government facilities in Amman? Or did you just miss that story even though it was carried by NTI's Global Security Newswire, the Associated Press, Jordanian Times, Agence France-Presse, CSPAN, The Washington Times, the San Diego Union-Tribune, The Boston Globe, CNN, USATODAY, CBS News, MSNBC, FOX News, ABC News, The National Review, Townhall, the Pittzburgh Post-Gazette, The Irish News, Powerline, FrontPageMag, Larry Elder, LittleGreenFootballs, Reuters and The Washington Post? :rolleyes:

They described themselves as al-Qaeda and said they met with al-Zarqawi (who they said planned and funded the attack) in Baghdad prior to our invasion. Those folks wanted to kill tens of thousands of innocent people. And perhaps the only reason that plot didn't succeed is that the US invasion put al-Zarqawi on the run so he couldn't devote much attention to the details of the plot.
Never mind that al-Zarqawi's group was not a direct outgrowth of al-Qaeda, al-Zarqawi entered Iraq because the US military was invading it. Prior to that, he had set up a training camp in Afghanistan near Herat. It's unclear whether he set up in Iraq just before or just after the invasion, but far from being on the run, he went to Iraq to meet his enemy.

And the chemical bomb plot was thwarted in 2004. The US invaded Iraq in March 2003.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by beachooser
And I find it curious that you say US policy should be for the benefit of the Iraqi people when Obama was perfectly content leaving Saddam and his brutal regime in place.

I am no Saddam fan,

Curious how often those who think we shouldn't have involved ourselves in Iraq in 2003 ... or even 1991 in many cases ... preface their remarks that way. :)

but how many people were dying per day under his brutal regime compared to how many have died per day since the US invasion?

According to many of the same people who say we shouldn't have invaded Iraq in 2001 ... according to organizations like the UN ... many thousands a month were dying as a result of Saddam's policies. In fact, there's a 700 page book out of France called "The Black Book of Saddam" that details the horror of Saddam's regime ... with numbers of dead in the millions over his stay in power. In the preface, Bernard Kouchner, human rights campaigner and founder of Doctors Without Borders, calls Saddam "one of the worst tyrants in history."

How many car bombs went off per day?

Just because car bombs weren't going off doesn't mean innocent Iraqis weren't dying. :rolleyes:

How many people were ethnically cleansed and living in internal exile?

You think there was no ethnic cleansing and internal exile under Saddam? :rolleyes:

Do you really believe the average Iraqi is currently in better shape now than they were under Saddam?

Absolutely. In a March 2008 poll for the BBC, ABC, ARD and NHK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/14_03_08iraqpollmarch2008.pdf ) about 55% of all Iraqis said their lives were good or very good. 62% of Shias and 73% of Kurds said that. Naturally, the Sunni figure was lower (35%) since one consequence of the invasion was to take their thumb off the other two groups. And those percentages were up significantly from August of last year. And as will be noted below, those numbers are unfavorably skewed because they way over-sampled Sunnis.

Likewise expections for what is to come improved from 6 months previous. About 45% said things will be somewhat or much better a year from now. 35% said things will be about the same. The percentage saying things will be worse or much worse was down from 39% to only 18%.

In that poll, the two biggest problems facing daily life on a personal level were judged to be poor electricity supply and unemployment. Curiously, the two biggest problem facing Iraq as a whole were deemed to be lack of security and terrorist attacks. Now that the corner has turned on al-Qaeda and terrorist attacks, both the electricity supply and unemployment situation should improve markedly since the former was often the cause of the latter.

Asked from today's perspective whether it was right for the US led coalition to invade 21% said it was absolutely right and 28% said it was somewhat right (for a total of 49%). But as I mentioned, it turns out the poll was skewed by over-sampling Sunnis, who tend to dislike the US for obvious reasons. When that skewness is corrected (http://www.deanesmay.com/2008/03/17/that-d3-systems-poll/ ), it turns out that 62% of Iraqis believe the invasion was right. Keep that bias in the poll in mind as you consider the rest of the results below.

The number of Iraqis who said it is "acceptable" to attack US forces has declined for the first time in these polls and virtually the whole country has turned against al-Qaeda. Support for militias is also way down from 6 months ago. Asked about today's conditions in the village/neighborhood where they live, 20% said the security situation was very good and 42% said it was quite good. That was back in March and things have improved even further since then.

Now, of course, 73% of Iraqis say they oppose having US forces in their country ... but 59% indicated they want us to remain until either security is restored, the Iraqi government is stronger or security forces can operate independently. Another 4 percent want us to remain without conditions. It's also interesting to note that for the following items these percentages wanted the US to have a future role:
Provide training and weapons to Iraqi Army - 76%
Provide financial aid for reconstruction - 73%
Assist in security of Iraq in terms of Iran - 68%
Assist in security of Iraq in terms of Turkey - 66%
Participate in security operations against al-Qaeda and foreign jihadis - 80%

Note that nationwide the unemployment rate is currently between 25-40%. What goes unsaid is that under Saddam in the year before the war, the unemployment rate was also in that range ... perhaps even higher (http://www.amchamiraq.com/?id=iraqfacts ) ... with few prospects for improvement given Saddam's behavior. The economic outlook amongst Iraqis now is good, especially as the terrorist and insurgency threat diminishes. Now is not the time to give those threats renewed hope. Not if you care about future employment.

Average hours of electricity per day is currently about 10. Baghdad gets an average of 7.5 hours per day. It is true that pre-war levels in Baghdad were 16-24 hours but much of the rest of the country made do with far less electricity before the war because Saddam wouldn't supply them with electricity (or water or sanitation or ... ). And in total, usage of electricity has skyrocketed in Iraq since the invasion. There are now far more electrical devices in use than before the war. Now, part of the problem is keeping up with the rapidly growing demand. So that statistic doesn't really tell the whole story of whether things are better or not.

The March poll indicates new optimism in the regions of Iraq that have been the most problematic ... Baghdad and Anbar. Positive ratings of local security rose to 43% in Baghdad (from almost zero in August) and 32% in Anbar (from zero last March). The positive rating rose 10 points to 68% in the rest of the country. According to the link above, if corrected for the oversampling of Sunnis, 70% — more than two-thirds — of Iraqis now describe their security situation as “very” or “quite” good.

Positive ratings for availability of local goods rose from near zero to 70% in Baghdad, from 28% to 67% in Anbar and 10 percent elsewhere. Positive views about the economic situation increased from 15% to 60% in Baghdad compared to August of last year, from 24% to 59% in Anbar and from 46% to 56% elsewhere.

Positive views about the availability of jobs rose from 0% last August to 43% in Anbar, by 18% in Baghdad, and by 4% elsewhere. Feelings that one can't live without persecution plummeted in Baghdad and Anbar. So the situation is not nearly as dire as you want us to believe. But just when we see the light at the end of the tunnel ... you and Obama want to run.

Quote:
The chief problem now facing us and the Iraqis are the arms being shipped in from Iran

yes, because it is much cheaper for the Iranians to keep us tied up in Iraq indefinitely, since as long as we are tied up there we do not have the capability of confronting them militarily.

Nonsense. First of all, if push comes to shove, we aren't going to confront the Iranians on the ground (other than via Special Forces insertions for very specific purposes). Now the Iranian Army might invade Iraq or Afghanistan but if it does that, the same thing will happen to it that happened to Saddam's Republican Guard divisions around Baghdad during our invasion in 2003 or what happened to Iraqi forces on the Highway of Death in 1991. Iranians are not tying up US forces in Iraq. They are a nuisance at best ... albeit one that is killing US forces and Iraqis, as well has hampering further progress in Iraq.

If we are forced to deal with Iran militarily, it will be via our far superior air and naval forces which will crush Iran's military and police forces, leaving Iran's people with an opportunity to overthrow the mullahs and their dictatorship. And having a strong presence in Iraq with large air bases from which to operate will be a benefit to such an effort. Abandoning Iraq and not building any facilities, as Obama wants to do, will make the problem of dealing with Iran much more difficult. He doesn't seem to understand that. :)

The Iranians can spend a billion or two funding the Shiite militias and force us to spend 100 billion to combat them. Great investment on their part and not a whole lot we can do to stop them.

You are wrong. We have a lot more leverage on Iran than you imagine because they have a lot more vulnerabilities than you imagine. First of all, time is on our side in that every day Iraq grows stronger. And our economy is growing much faster than Iran's. A large portion of Iran's populace would love to see an end to the religious tyranny. We can exploit that. And if our patience grows thin enough, you may see the Iranian government be given an ultimatum. Either stop interferring in Iraq or face the consequences. And the consequences could be the systematic destruction of that which keeps the Iranian dictatorship in power.

Quote:
... from a terrorist supporting dictatorship that strangely enough Obama wants to sit down and negotiate with without preconditions.

yes, because you negotiate with your enemies, not your friends.

ROTFLOL! Platitudes do not make a coherent foreign policy. And history clearly shows that negotiation with dictatorships tends to have the opposite effect one would like. Negotiation tends to prop them up and give them a sense of security so they increase their ambitions. That has especially been true in the Middle East.

Quote: Now not only is the above false (the political leaders have made considerable progress and the surge by most accounts has been the turning point in the war against al-Qaeda). It also paints the picture that the war is lost which also is at odds with what those on the ground in Iraq say (and not just the generals).

was it false in September 2007 when he said it?

Obviously, since the war is clearly not lost. Had we done what Obama unwisely advised back then ... immediately pull out (and he was suggesting it happen VERY rapidly back then), then all the progress we now see would never have happened. In fact, the situation in Iraq would probably now be much worse. Maybe the lesson in this is that Obama lacks patience ... which is something I believe one needs even if one intends to substitute fruitless negotiation for judicious application of force. :)

And keep in mind that Obama's Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007, that he introduced in January of 2007, called for U.S. combat forces to be out of Iraq by March 31, 2008. What do you think Iraq would look like now had we done that, qdnp? It would have undone the Anbar Awakening, significantly strengthened al-Qaeda, increased Iranian influence, and resulted in far greater civilian deaths. And Iraq's future would be a lot more grim than it is now.

Can you find a recent quote where he claims that the surge is a failure? If so, I will retract.

In April when Obama had the opportunity to question General Petraeus at the Senate Hearing, Obama stated that " I think the surge has had some impact, as I suggested. I would hope it would, given the sacrifices and loss that have been made. I would argue that the impact has been relatively modest given the investment." He basically went on to argue that the surge was a failure because the improvements are unsustainable.

On May 14th, Obama spoke about the "failed" Bush policy in Iraq. Is it failed if the surge has worked ... if al-Qaeda is crushed, the militias are on the run and Iraqis are doing as well as noted above? Of course, Obama in that same speech said Bush's policy "asks everything of our troops and nothing of Iraqi politicians". Never mind the successful operations by Iraqi forces into Baghdad's Sadr City. Never mind the number of Iraqi politicians who have literally put their lives on the line in this struggle. I guess Obama was too busy making women faint to notice those things. :)

On May 27th, Obama's spokesman Bill Burton rejected McCain's suggestion that they tour Iraq together and said "John McCain’s proposal is nothing more than a political stunt, and we don’t need any more ‘Mission Accomplished’ banners or walks through Baghdad markets to know that Iraq’s leaders have not made the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge." Clearly he's saying that the surge is a failure and I didn't see Obama say his spokesperson was speaking out of turn. The truth is that Obama has been consistently wrong in supporting the "failed strategy" theme of the far left wing of the DNC and opposing the surge, even as its success became readily apparent.

Can you offer any quotes by Obama that say the surge is a success?

Quote:
By the way ... I'm still curious ... do you agree with Reid and Pelosi that General Patraeus is a liar? Do you agree with Pelosi that the reason the surge has worked is because of the "goodwill" of Iran?

Don't know. Haven't read their quotes.

Why not? Are you too busy following Obama's campaign to keep up with what the democrat leaders of the House and Senate say? Perhaps you should go read their views. They did indeed call General Patraeus a "liar" and they still say the war is lost. Well maybe Obama's first act as presumptive head of his party should be to replace those two. They clearly are divorced from reality because of their overriding dislike of Bush or desire for power. :)

I have often felt that if the Iraqi insurgents truly wish to get the US out, the smartest thing they could do is lower the level of violence so that the US could pull out and then start an all-out civil war. Kind of like the peace treaty Nixon signed with the Vietnamese: if the Americans pull out the combat troops we are unlikely to intervene should a civil war break out. Could this be happening now? Possibly, but I doubt it.

Why does that have to be a planned outcome by the enemy? What if it's just the way it might turn out if we prematurely withdraw? Isn't that a reason to see this through to a good end ... until Iraq truly is ready to stand on it's own two feet against al-Qaeda and Iranian backed insurgents? Does it make any sense to fold and throw in your cards when you finally have a winning hand? Obama seems to think so. :)

[BeAChooser]

Yeah, politically things are just great. The various Iraqi factions are having a love fest....wait, Iraq Sunni bloc quits coalition (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/73B20040-C171-4C31-A0D3-2480CCF2EF18.htm)."

ROTFLOL! Maybe the reason that progress has finally been made in Iraq is that certain politicians (sort of like the democrat party) have decided to boycott government activities. We could be so lucky. :)

[BeAChooser]

Clarifying questions don't count as questions?

Well I don't really think they count as different questions. Do you? :)

Funnily enough, Crocker ended by echoing Obama's central point--that a sustainable, if "sloppy", status quo, with a drastically reduced US troop force, is a realistic, attainable goal.

The Administration has never said otherwise. However, Crocker was clear that doing what Obama suggested (his planned withdrawal) was likely to not reach that goal.

Never mind that al-Zarqawi's group was not a direct outgrowth of al-Qaeda, al-Zarqawi entered Iraq because the US military was invading it.

False and false. First of all, al-Qaeda is a very nebulous beast. Hard to say what was "al-Qaeda" and what wasn't. As an example, guess who bin Ladin watched the collapse of the World Trade Centers with? Should we not consider that man part of the same threat? And for the record, al-Zarqawi was in Afghanistan with the permission of bin Laden and the Taliban. And al-Zarqawi entered Iraq well BEFORE our invasion. So how could it be "because"?

It's unclear whether he set up in Iraq just before or just after the invasion

No, it is not unclear. And we even have the testimony of al-Qaeda terrorists to confirm that he was in Iraq before the invasion.

but far from being on the run, he went to Iraq to meet his enemy.

Al-Zarqawi fled to Iraq after the invasion of Afghanistan well before we invaded Iraq. We know he received treatment in an Iraqi hospital. There is various intelligence showing he was in Iraq before the invasion and meeting with other terrorists. Where have you been?

And the chemical bomb plot was thwarted in 2004. The US invaded Iraq in March 2003.

The planning for the attack occurred BEFORE the invasion. We have the statements of the terrorists themselves to prove that. Where have you been? Did you not read any articles on this case? :D

[gdnp]

Why not? Are you too busy following Obama's campaign to keep up with what the democrat leaders of the House and Senate say? Perhaps you should go read their views.
Actually, I am too busy at work

I appreciate the time you have spent responding to my previous comments. This is obviously a topic of great interest to you. You have made some valid points. You have made others with which I strongly disagree.

Unfortunately, I do not have sufficient interest to spend the many hours that would be necessary to research all of the issues in question and supply the detailed response that your lengthy post deserves. I have other obligations. If I had wished to enter an in-depth debate on the Iraq invasion I would have entered my comments in a thread on that topic.

[BeAChooser]

Unfortunately, I do not have sufficient interest to spend the many hours that would be necessary to research all of the issues in question and supply the detailed response that your lengthy post deserves. I have other obligations. If I had wished to enter an in-depth debate on the Iraq invasion I would have entered my comments in a thread on that topic.

You joined this thread to defend Obama. I will agree that the argument against him in the OP of this thread is inconsequential if not invalid. I assume you intend to vote for the man. But think twice about that. If there is a reason to not vote for him, it's the poor judgement he has repeatedly shown with regards to Iraq. That's what we should be talking about. He was wrong in 2002. He was wrong in 2003. He was wrong in 2004. He was wrong in 2005. He was wrong in 2006. He was wrong in 2007. And he's still wrong about Iraq in 2008. If we'd done what he said we should do in 2003 ... or 2007, the situation in Iraq, US security, and world security would be MUCH worse today. Dangerously worse. And what the democrat leaders of the House and Senate say is equally wrongheaded. So I think it behooves you to spend more time on this topic before you cast your vote for Obama (or Hillary) this fall. But perhaps you need not spend that time right now. Enjoy your weekend. :)

[gdnp]

He was wrong in 2002. He was wrong in 2003. He was wrong in 2004. He was wrong in 2005. He was wrong in 2006. He was wrong in 2007. And he's still wrong about Iraq in 2008. If we'd done what he said we should do in 2003 ... or 2007, the situation in Iraq, US security, and world security would be MUCH worse today. Dangerously worse.

Again, if I wanted to enter a debate about US Iraq policy, I would have. That being said, I think the argument that we are in better shape now, having invaded Iraq, than we would have been if we continued to contain Saddam and allowed the weapons inspectors to do there job, is laughable. It's one thing to argue what our future path should be, but would you honestly, with the wisdom of hindsight, knowing what we know today, argue that it's all been worth it? We have lost 4000 soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars, and for all that blood and money are less secure, have $120 a barrel oil, and allies who no longer support us.

I hope that when Obama takes office 9 months from now he will assess the situation as it then stands and act appropriately. Fortunately, he does not seem to suffer from the pig-headed "stay the course" rigidity of the current administration.

[BeAChooser]

Again, if I wanted to enter a debate about US Iraq policy, I would have. That being said, I think the argument that we are in better shape now, having invaded Iraq, than we would have been if we continued to contain Saddam and allowed the weapons inspectors to do there job, is laughable.

What is laughable is the utter hypocrisy of those supporting Obama's foreign policy statements, yet arguing that Bush was wrong to invade Iraq. They claim Bush was wrong because a few of those in his administration at the time and a few of the experts outside his administration at the time argued against it ... and he didn't listen to them. Think about it, folks ... the vast majority of the experts back in 2002 and 2003, here and abroad, and even most of those in the opposing party in 2002, were on the record saying that Saddam was a serious threat, had WMD, was consorting with terrorists and needed to be deposed. They even passed legislation to that effect, both here in the US and in the UN. And yet Bush was wrong to invade.

“I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq – Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991.” John Kerry (July 2002)

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore (September 2002)

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore (September 2002)

"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable." Senator John F. Kerry (October 2002)

"In the 4 years since the inspectors, 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-Qaida 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 wiill continue to increase his capability 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." Senator Hillary Clinton (October 2002)

"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."..."Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq’s efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction." Senator John Edwards (October 2002)

"We should be hell bent on getting those weapons of mass destruction, hell bent on having a credible approach to them, but we should try to do it in a way which keeps the world together and that achieves our goal which is removing the... defanging Saddam.." Senator Carl Levin (December 2002)

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Senator Jay Rockefeller (October 2002)

And now in 2008 we have Obama (and these very same democrats) arguing that we need to pull out of Iraq even though the vast majority of the experts on the current situation (the military, CIA, Senate Intelligence Committee, etc) are now saying we need to stay the course and see this to a successful conclusion. Even though the facts clearly show that we are now winning the war. It seems that Obama democrats only want our leaders to listen to the minority opinion. :rolleyes:

It's one thing to argue what our future path should be, but would you honestly, with the wisdom of hindsight, knowing what we know today, argue that it's all been worth it? We have lost 4000 soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars, and for all that blood and money are less secure, have $120 a barrel oil, and allies who no longer support us.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Because then you think you can never be wrong. But your claim is only an OPINION. We don't have a crystal ball (just as we didn't back then) to know what today would look like had we not invaded. A good case can be made that just the opposite of what you say is true ... that had Saddam not been removed, just as many lives would have been lost, the cost would have been just as great and oil prices would be just as high ... perhaps even greater. And Saddam (and perhaps al-Qaeda in Iraq and elsewhere) would still be around to cause even more mischief in the future ... to make us even less secure than you claim we now are (an assertion that is unsupported by facts, by the way).

My crystal ball (and that of a lot of other people) says you'd have solved NOTHING except prolong the problem and make the future even more uncertain and dangerous. Because right now, Saddam would not be contained and he'd have reconstituted much of his WMD arsenal. And I'm more than willing to debate those points in detail ... if you wish ... although I suspect that's not something you'll do. My opinion, and the opinion of a great many level headed people, is that because we invaded, we've enjoyed 5 years without a serious terrorist attack inside the US. We've kept WMD materials and information from falling into the hands of al-Qaeda. It's kept al-Qaeda occupied in a place that we can effectively use our military. And now, because we invaded ... and because we didn't listen to Obama back in 2007 (and earlier) when he insisted we withdraw haphazard, al-Qaeda itself stands on the verge of defeat and Iraq is looking more and more like that vision we all hoped it would become back in 2003 when we first invaded. You don't believe me?

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5486 "May 2008 One Of Top Two Least Violent Months Of The Entire Iraq War ... snip ... Civilian deaths in Iraq also plummeted by 50% since one month ago as well ... snip ... the civilian casualty rate is the lowest since December 2005. Somehow the claims we are defeated in Iraq sound more and more hollow, more and more desperate, more and more delusional. ... snip ... It’s official, May 2008 was the lowest month for US fatalities for the entire Iraq War".

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/04/media-ignores-record-progress-finds.html "April 30, 2008, Media Ignores Record Progress-- Finds Reason to Slam Iraq, With April's numbers the last 7 months have seen the lowest number of US military fatalities since the war began in 2003. But that is not how the media reported things."

http://www.amazon.com/Moment-Truth-Iraq-Greatest-Generation/dp/0980076323/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209648585&sr=8-1 "Moment Of Truth In Iraq" A great book that destroys the claims of defeat by the democrats.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/163qxfzt.asp "Win the War? Yes, We Can! ... snip ... The left's analysis of jihadism has been proved incorrect at every turn. It argued military power would be ineffective against the terrorists. Wrong. It argued that intervention in Iraq would energize bin Laden's movement. That movement is in shambles. The left argued Iraq was a lost cause. It isn't. The left argues that a "war on terrorism" is futile, that defeat is inevitable, because terrorism is a "tactic," not an enemy. Nonsense. President Bush has demonstrated through perseverance and (more often than not) sound policy that the war on terror can be won. And right now we're winning it."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080531.wfranceiraq0531/BNStory/International/home "French minister's visit signals change on Iraq ... snip ... Reuters
May 31, 2008 ... snip ... BAGHDAD — French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner discussed investment projects to help rebuild Iraq on Saturday on a visit to the country whose 2003 invasion by U.S.-led troops Paris strongly opposed."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/31/AR2008053101927.html "The Iraqi Upturn, Don't look now, but the U.S.-backed government and army may be winning the war, Sunday, June 1, 2008 ... snip ... military analysts have watched with astonishment as the Iraqi government and army have gained control for the first time of the port city of Basra and the sprawling Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, routing the Shiite militias that have ruled them for years and sending key militants scurrying to Iran. At the same time, Iraqi and U.S. forces have pushed forward with a long-promised offensive in Mosul, the last urban refuge of al-Qaeda."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/frontline/2062440/Afghanistan's-Taliban-insurgents-'on-brink-of-defeat'.html "Afghan insurgents 'on brink of defeat' ... snip ... (June 1) 2008, Missions by special forces and air strikes by unmanned drones have "decapitated" the Taliban and brought the war in Afghanistan to a "tipping point", the commander of British forces has said."

From http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/08/shhh-us-winning-iraq-war-military-plans.html "Shhh... US Winning Iraq War- Military Plans Troop Reduction" Love this chart: http://bp2.blogger.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/RsrnZgNI5OI/AAAAAAAAGsE/4vi_zI92HIA/s1600-h/clinton+years.JPG

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05202008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/success_in_iraq__a_media_blackout_111606.htm?page= 0 "SUCCESS IN IRAQ: A MEDIA BLACKOUT"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121253706422142819.html?mod=rss_opinion_main "Why We Went to Iraq ... snip ... Of all that has been written about the play of things in Iraq, nothing that I have seen approximates the truth of what our ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, recently said of this war: 'In the end, how we leave and what we leave behind will be more important than how we came.' ... snip ... Five months from now, the American public will vote on this war, in the most dramatic and definitive of ways. There will be people who heed Ambassador Crocker's admonition. And there will be others keen on retelling how we made our way to Iraq."

I hope that when Obama takes office 9 months from now he will assess the situation as it then stands and act appropriately. Fortunately, he does not seem to suffer from the pig-headed "stay the course" rigidity of the current administration.

What gives you any confidence he will do that when he didn't assess the situation right back in 2003, or in 2007 and isn't doing it now? Why does he have to wait until being elected to acknowledge that we are winning the war? If can't bring himself to do that, he and his supporters are the ones being "pig-headed". Or is he just hoping to take credit if he does manage to get elected. :D

And by the way ... here's one more little factoid regarding your concern about the death toll in Iraq ... do you know that the UN says that every 15 minutes someone is shot to death ... in Brazil. That's 35,000 dead a year. From gunshot. In peaceful Brazil. And you folks say Iraq's a lost cause because in May of this year, a dozen US soldiers and 500 civilians were killed there. :rolleyes:

[Darth Rotor]

The US Iraq policy should be for the benefit of the US,
Yes

the Iraqi people, and overall world peace and stability.
Maybe, if it serves the primary interest.
It is the American president's responsibility to make sure that the lives of American troops are not placed in jeopardy unnecessarily. There is a strong bias of troops everywhere to believe in their mission. No one wants to think that what they do is pointless, especially if they might die doing it.
True enough.
Now that the generals who formulated the previous failed policy have been forced out, and the generals that disagreed with the current administration policy have been forced out, we are supposed to accept the pronouncements of the current generals as gospel, unopen to challenge? I don't think so.
Policy comes from the suits, not the generals. Try to recall: civilian control of the military. Granted, the overlap is sufficient that any number of stars can share in the blame.
Again, please provide quotes where I or Obama has stated the opinions of the generals are not relevant. If Obama chooses to ignore, or perhaps a better term would be override, the opinions of the generals, then how does that make him different from GWB, who ignored the generals who claimed that a much larger invasion force was necessary?
It would make him a standard American president.
Is this not the prerogative of the Commander in Chief?
Yeah.
Another straw man. I never said that the surge hasn't worked. I said that there were consequences to every decision that were worse than predicted.
Yeah.
In fact, the success of the surge has exceeded my expectations. But it has fallen short of at least some of the claims of the Bush administration. You may recall, for example, that the surge was supposed to be temporary, with the troops then withdrawn. Yet this spring they decided that if we did not "pause" the drawdown after an initial token number of troops were withdrawn the gains they had achieved might be lost. They have thus underestimated the costs monetarily, in lives disrupted, and in our overall military readiness.
Yeah.
I suppose the alternative interpretation is that Bush knew all along that a larger number of troops would be required indefinitely, and presented it as a surge because he knew that congress and the American people would be more resistant if it were presented as a long-term escalation rather than a surge. If so, it's one of the few intelligent decisions he has made, as the increased troop numbers, and more importantly the way they have been deployed, does seem to have had a positive effect.
Short term, with long term impact on manpower and material readiness.

DR

[Dr Adequate]

What is laughable is the utter hypocrisy of those supporting Obama's foreign policy statements, yet arguing that Bush was wrong to invade Iraq. They claim Bush was wrong because a few of those in his administration at the time and a few of the experts outside his administration at the time argued against it ... and he didn't listen to them. Think about it, folks ... the vast majority of the experts back in 2002 and 2003, here and abroad, and even most of those in the opposing party in 2002, were on the record saying that Saddam was a serious threat, had WMD, was consorting with terrorists and needed to be deposed. They even passed legislation to that effect, both here in the US and in the UN. And yet Bush was wrong to invade.

“I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq – Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991.” John Kerry (July 2002)

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore (September 2002)

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore (September 2002)

"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable." Senator John F. Kerry (October 2002)

"In the 4 years since the inspectors, 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-Qaida 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 wiill continue to increase his capability 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." Senator Hillary Clinton (October 2002)

"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."..."Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq’s efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction." Senator John Edwards (October 2002)

"We should be hell bent on getting those weapons of mass destruction, hell bent on having a credible approach to them, but we should try to do it in a way which keeps the world together and that achieves our goal which is removing the... defanging Saddam.." Senator Carl Levin (December 2002)

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Senator Jay Rockefeller (October 2002)

And now in 2008 we have Obama (and these very same democrats) arguing that we need to pull out of Iraq even though the vast majority of the experts on the current situation (the military, CIA, Senate Intelligence Committee, etc) are now saying we need to stay the course and see this to a successful conclusion. Even though the facts clearly show that we are now winning the war. It seems that Obama democrats only want our leaders to listen to the minority opinion. :rolleyes:



Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Because then you think you can never be wrong. But your claim is only an OPINION. We don't have a crystal ball (just as we didn't back then) to know what today would look like had we not invaded. A good case can be made that just the opposite of what you say is true ... that had Saddam not been removed, just as many lives would have been lost, the cost would have been just as great and oil prices would be just as high ... perhaps even greater. And Saddam (and perhaps al-Qaeda in Iraq and elsewhere) would still be around to cause even more mischief in the future ... to make us even less secure than you claim we now are (an assertion that is unsupported by facts, by the way).

My crystal ball (and that of a lot of other people) says you'd have solved NOTHING except prolong the problem and make the future even more uncertain and dangerous. Because right now, Saddam would not be contained and he'd have reconstituted much of his WMD arsenal. And I'm more than willing to debate those points in detail ... if you wish ... although I suspect that's not something you'll do. My opinion, and the opinion of a great many level headed people, is that because we invaded, we've enjoyed 5 years without a serious terrorist attack inside the US. We've kept WMD materials and information from falling into the hands of al-Qaeda. It's kept al-Qaeda occupied in a place that we can effectively use our military. And now, because we invaded ... and because we didn't listen to Obama back in 2007 (and earlier) when he insisted we withdraw haphazard, al-Qaeda itself stands on the verge of defeat and Iraq is looking more and more like that vision we all hoped it would become back in 2003 when we first invaded. You don't believe me?

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5486 "May 2008 One Of Top Two Least Violent Months Of The Entire Iraq War ... snip ... Civilian deaths in Iraq also plummeted by 50% since one month ago as well ... snip ... the civilian casualty rate is the lowest since December 2005. Somehow the claims we are defeated in Iraq sound more and more hollow, more and more desperate, more and more delusional. ... snip ... It’s official, May 2008 was the lowest month for US fatalities for the entire Iraq War".

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/04/media-ignores-record-progress-finds.html "April 30, 2008, Media Ignores Record Progress-- Finds Reason to Slam Iraq, With April's numbers the last 7 months have seen the lowest number of US military fatalities since the war began in 2003. But that is not how the media reported things."

http://www.amazon.com/Moment-Truth-Iraq-Greatest-Generation/dp/0980076323/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209648585&sr=8-1 "Moment Of Truth In Iraq" A great book that destroys the claims of defeat by the democrats.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/163qxfzt.asp "Win the War? Yes, We Can! ... snip ... The left's analysis of jihadism has been proved incorrect at every turn. It argued military power would be ineffective against the terrorists. Wrong. It argued that intervention in Iraq would energize bin Laden's movement. That movement is in shambles. The left argued Iraq was a lost cause. It isn't. The left argues that a "war on terrorism" is futile, that defeat is inevitable, because terrorism is a "tactic," not an enemy. Nonsense. President Bush has demonstrated through perseverance and (more often than not) sound policy that the war on terror can be won. And right now we're winning it."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080531.wfranceiraq0531/BNStory/International/home "French minister's visit signals change on Iraq ... snip ... Reuters
May 31, 2008 ... snip ... BAGHDAD — French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner discussed investment projects to help rebuild Iraq on Saturday on a visit to the country whose 2003 invasion by U.S.-led troops Paris strongly opposed."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/31/AR2008053101927.html "The Iraqi Upturn, Don't look now, but the U.S.-backed government and army may be winning the war, Sunday, June 1, 2008 ... snip ... military analysts have watched with astonishment as the Iraqi government and army have gained control for the first time of the port city of Basra and the sprawling Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, routing the Shiite militias that have ruled them for years and sending key militants scurrying to Iran. At the same time, Iraqi and U.S. forces have pushed forward with a long-promised offensive in Mosul, the last urban refuge of al-Qaeda."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/frontline/2062440/Afghanistan's-Taliban-insurgents-'on-brink-of-defeat'.html "Afghan insurgents 'on brink of defeat' ... snip ... (June 1) 2008, Missions by special forces and air strikes by unmanned drones have "decapitated" the Taliban and brought the war in Afghanistan to a "tipping point", the commander of British forces has said."

From http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/08/shhh-us-winning-iraq-war-military-plans.html "Shhh... US Winning Iraq War- Military Plans Troop Reduction" Love this chart: http://bp2.blogger.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/RsrnZgNI5OI/AAAAAAAAGsE/4vi_zI92HIA/s1600-h/clinton+years.JPG

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05202008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/success_in_iraq__a_media_blackout_111606.htm?page= 0 "SUCCESS IN IRAQ: A MEDIA BLACKOUT"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121253706422142819.html?mod=rss_opinion_main "Why We Went to Iraq ... snip ... Of all that has been written about the play of things in Iraq, nothing that I have seen approximates the truth of what our ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, recently said of this war: 'In the end, how we leave and what we leave behind will be more important than how we came.' ... snip ... Five months from now, the American public will vote on this war, in the most dramatic and definitive of ways. There will be people who heed Ambassador Crocker's admonition. And there will be others keen on retelling how we made our way to Iraq."



What gives you any confidence he will do that when he didn't assess the situation right back in 2003, or in 2007 and isn't doing it now? Why does he have to wait until being elected to acknowledge that we are winning the war? If can't bring himself to do that, he and his supporters are the ones being "pig-headed". Or is he just hoping to take credit if he does manage to get elected. :D

And by the way ... here's one more little factoid regarding your concern about the death toll in Iraq ... do you know that the UN says that every 15 minutes someone is shot to death ... in Brazil. That's 35,000 dead a year. From gunshot. In peaceful Brazil. And you folks say Iraq's a lost cause because in May of this year, a dozen US soldiers and 500 civilians were killed there. :rolleyes: Hooray, what a lot of words.

I notice that none of them relate to Senator Barack Obama's take on the war in Iraq, but what the hey, you have to say something.

[gdnp]

To quote Michael Corleone: Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in.

What is laughable is the utter hypocrisy of those supporting Obama's foreign policy statements, yet arguing that Bush was wrong to invade Iraq. They claim Bush was wrong because a few of those in his administration at the time and a few of the experts outside his administration at the time argued against it ... and he didn't listen to them. Think about it, folks ... the vast majority of the experts back in 2002 and 2003, here and abroad, and even most of those in the opposing party in 2002, were on the record saying that Saddam was a serious threat, had WMD, was consorting with terrorists and needed to be deposed.

What is laughable is the way that you spin the mendacity of the Bush administration. The Bush administration selectively quotes and distorts intelligence reports, people believe their lies, and then you claim that it isn't Bush's fault because he had widespread support.

They even passed legislation to that effect, both here in the US and in the UN. And yet Bush was wrong to invade.

What is indisputable is that the vast majority of countries and many in the American population did not think that the invasion was warranted when Bush sent in the troops, believing that the weapons inspectors should be given more time now that Saddam was complying with highly intrusive inspections. Bush had Congress pass a bill authorizing the invasion of Iraq as a stick to compel Saddam to comply with the weapons inspectors, which he did. Many who supported it thought that Bush would only use invasion as a last resort, and that if we invaded we would be greeted as liberators and in and out quickly; unfortunately, they were wrong.

If the Bush administration really had UN support for the invasion, why did they not submit a security council resolution specifically authorizing it? Because it would never have had the votes to pass, and even if it did it would have been vetoed, not only by Russia but also by France.

Bush administration lies were successful in turning US opinion in favor of an invasion, especially as no one wants to be seen as failing to "support our troops" in times of war no matter how wrongheaded the mission. Still, I do not recall support being as strong as you claim. You are great at flooding the forum with quotes. Perhaps you can show me quotes from each of the same individuals on or about March 19 2003 that state that invasion is the correct action and that Bush has their full support.

To a large extent even this would be moot: Any support Bush administration had for the invasion was predicated on their lies and disinformation. You can't spread lies about your enemies, stir up a lynch mob, and then claim that the lynching wasn't your fault because it had broad public support.

International opinion, however, was strongly against the invasion. The US did coerce a few allies into the "coalition of the willing", but even in those countries the populations were far less supportive of invasion than the governments.

Just a few quotes, from Wikipedia (not the greatest source, but in this case referenced if you want to check) that generally supports my memory of the events: (bolding is mine).

Bush began formally making his case to the international community for an invasion of Iraq in his September 12, 2002 address to the U.N. Security Council.[27] Key U.S. allies in the NATO allies, including France and Germany, were critical of plans to invade Iraq, arguing instead for continued diplomacy and weapons inspections. After considerable debate, the U.N. Security Council adopted a compromise resolution, 1441, which authorized the resumption of weapons inspections and promised "serious consequences" for noncompliance. Security Council members France and Russia made clear that they did not believe these consequences to include the use of force to overthrow the Iraqi government.[28] Both the U.S. ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, and the UK ambassador Jeremy Greenstock publicly confirmed this reading of the resolution, assuring that Resolution 1441 provided no "automaticity" or "hidden triggers" for an invasion without further consultation of the Security Council.[29]

Paralleling its efforts in the U.N., the Bush Administration also sought domestic authorization for an invasion, which it was granted on October 2002 when the U.S. Congress passed a "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq". While the resolution authorized the President to "use any means necessary" against Iraq, Americans polled in January 2003 widely favored further diplomacy over an invasion. Later that year, however, Americans began to agree with Bush's plan. Americans overwhelmingly believed Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction: 85% said so, even though the inspectors hadn't uncovered those weapons yet. Of those who thought Iraq had weapons stashed somewhere, about half were pessimistic that they’d ever turn up. By February 2003, 74% of Americans supported taking military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power.[10]

In February 2003, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the United Nations General Assembly, continuing U.S. efforts to gain U.N. authorization for an invasion. Powell presented evidence alleging that Iraq was actively producing chemical and biological weapons and had ties to al-Qaeda, claims that have since been widely discredited. As a follow-up to Powell’s presentation, the United States, United Kingdom, Poland, Italy, Australia, Denmark, Japan, and Spain proposed a UN Resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, but NATO members like Canada, France, and Germany, together with Russia, strongly urged continued diplomacy. Facing a losing vote as well as a likely veto from France and Russia, the U.S., UK, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Italy, Japan, and Australia eventually withdrew their resolution.[30][31]

With the failure of its resolution, the U.S. and their supporters abandoned the Security Council procedures and decided to pursue the invasion without U.N. authorization, a decision of questionable legality under international law.[32] This decision was widely unpopular worldwide, and opposition to the invasion coalesced on February 15 in a worldwide anti-war protest that attracted big between six and ten million people in more than 800 cities, the largest such protest in human history according to the Guinness Book of World Records.[33]

In March 2003, the United States, United Kingdom, Spain, Australia, Poland, Denmark, and Italy began preparing for the invasion of Iraq, with a host of public relations, and military moves. In his March 17, 2003 address to the nation, Bush demanded that Hussein and his two sons Uday and Qusay surrender and leave Iraq, giving them a 48-hour deadline.[34] But Bush actually began the bombing of Iraq on March 18, the day before his deadline expired. On March 18, 2003, the bombing of Iraq by the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Australia, and Denmark began, without UN support, unlike the first Gulf War or the invasion of Afghanistan.

There. I'm late for work. Happy?

[NotJesus]

The Bush administration selectively quotes and distorts intelligence reports...


It seems that the Senate Intelligence Committee agrees. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/index.html?iref=newssearch)

[Darth Rotor]

It seems that the Senate Intelligence Committee agrees. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/index.html?iref=newssearch)
About five years too late. Closed barn with horse long gone. Not a paragon of effective Congressional oversight.
I want a Congressional inquiry into the ineffectiveness of Congressional inquiries. (http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1137265/index.htm) --Chris Ballard--

DR

[Upchurch]

About five years too late. Closed barn with horse long gone.
Too late to save the horses, but not too late smack upside the head the idiot who left the barn doors open in the first place.

[BeAChooser]

Hooray, what a lot of words. I notice that none of them relate to Senator Barack Obama's take on the war in Iraq

A lot of words that apparently just passed in one ear and out the other. Are you unaware that Obama claims that the war is lost or unwinnable? It's his reason for saying we should withdraw. So those sources you dismiss actually do relate to Obama's take because they directly contradict that assertion. Are you unaware that he claims there's no downside to withdrawing in the manner he's suggested? Some of those sources directly contradict that assertion as well. I suggest you actually try opening and reading them. :D

[BeAChooser]

What is laughable is the way that you spin the mendacity of the Bush administration.

You express concern about mendacity? ROTFLOL! Sorry, but democRATS can stake no claim to valuing truthfulness. Afterall, they put and kept Bill Clinton in office for two terms and would have kept him there for a third had it been possible ... even after it became clear that Clinton lied to everyone he could conceivably have lie to and was engaged in very serious criminal activity. Then they tried to put the Vice President to Clinton, Al Gore, in office even though he also was directly involved in some of that criminality. Then they tried to put John Kerry in office ... a man who also showed little regard for truth. And now at least half of those democRATS just showed themselves eager to put Hillary in the oval office despite the fact that she played a fundamental role in many of those earlier crimes, has lied repeatedly in the past and lied during the campaign. So don't try to throw the word mendacity at me as if you really care about it. Or do you wish to claim you never supported the Clintons, Gore and Kerry? :D

What is indisputable is that the vast majority of countries and many in the American population did not think that the invasion was warranted when Bush sent in the troops, believing that the weapons inspectors should be given more time now that Saddam was complying with highly intrusive inspections.

Let's look closely at the veracity of your claim.

First of all, consider the situation just a few months before the invasion. I've already shown quotes from major leaders of the democrat party. Security Council Resolution 1441 passed UNANIMOUSLY on 8 November 2002. It gave Saddam a FINAL opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations or face severe consequences. There was a deadline for that cooperation. The consequences of not complying should have been obvious to all (including the democrats who later authorized the President to use force and countries like France who later were against invasion) given that we were mobilizing a large invasion force in the region at the time with the stated intention of invading if Saddam did not cooperate.

Now the Iraqis could have done what South Africa did when it decided to come clean about its WMD programs. They could have allowed UN inspectors complete access to both operating and defunct facilities, provided all current and historical documents, and allowed detailed, unfettered discussions with personnel involved in the WMD programs. But Iraq did not.

No, Iraq put up the same obstacles they'd put up the previous decade, hindering UN inspectors every step of the way. Their document submittals were again incomplete and, in some cases, outright false. They obstructed access to sites. They prevented use of surveillance aircraft so they could shuffle materials around between inspections, that we later learned they often knew about in advance because it turns out they had moles in the UN inspection teams. They threatened anyone who might talk to inspectors (including threats to kill family members) and would not allow unfettered interviews where Saddam's henchmen were not present.

They were given a specific deadline to comply with the resolution, then delayed any real cooperation until well past that deadline, in fact, just before US forces were set to invade. And even then, as the post invasion inspectors found, they were still lying about and hiding what they had and were doing with it. We even have good reason to suspect that in those final months they moved prohibited materials and items out of the country to neighboring dictatorships. We know that in those final months they were busy make preparations to resist invasion and even training forces to resist that invasion using terrorist tactics and tools (like explosive vests). So for you to suggest Saddam was complying with the inspection process is outright laughable. But then democrats seem to like being lied to ...

Now you claim that the vast majority of countries did not think an invasion was warranted. That's false. And here is why ...

First, note that the coalition of the willing (those who did openly support invasion) consisted of 49 countries (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030327-10.html) with a combined population of over a billion people and a GDP of about $22 billion. That was more countries than joined in to liberate Kuwait in 1991. Furthermore, note that the US government said there were another 15 countries that materially supported the invasion effort but did not want their identity disclosed. That's not unlikely since countries like Israel would have certainly liked to see Saddam gone but wouldn't wanted to have inflamed regional opinions and even Saudi Arabia might have been in that camp. So there were possibly as many as 70 countries in the pro-invasion camp in March 2003.

Now how many countries were there in the world in 2003? I think the number is about 192. How many had a population of more than a million? Only 150. Let's delete those smaller countries from both lists as I don't think it fair to give countries with populations of 100,000 a vote equal to the rest in matters such as this. Do you? :)

Subtracting them, that leaves 44 countries with populations over a million that openly supported the invasion, and perhaps another 15 who did but didn't want it known. In which case, that would leave only 91 countries that either openly did not support it, did not say they were opposed to it, or who where outright neutral.

Let's take a closer look at Europe. http://www.pwhce.org/willing.html#maps show a map of the way various countries in Europe leaned in March 2003 regarding this matter. There were 19 in the Coalition Of The Willing. There were 7 openly opposed. There were 8 that were neutral or undeclared. And there were 4 that apparently gave ambiguous signals (for example, note that both Sweden and Norway came out against the invasion but made material contributions to the Coalition effort). So it is clearly unfair to claim Europe was overwhelmingly against invasion. In fact, just the opposite was true. And a year later, one can see that there were 20 countries supporting the war effort, 8 countries against it, 7 countries neutral and 3 that were ambiguous. So Europe was still firmly on our side in this matter.

And of the countries in Europe that opposed the invasion, consider that we found clear evidence that France, Germany and Russia (the three largest) had materially aided Saddam just prior to the war, and had government officials and business leaders that were being bribed by Saddam's regime with cash and promises of lucrative contracts if Iraq got a clean bill of health from the inspectors (i.e., there was no invasion). So should they really count as being against invasion? Maybe they should have recused themselves from the matter at the UN. Or were they acting like countries that should be viewed as enemies and whose opinions should be ignored (or discounted) by us in any case?

What about the rest of the world?

First of all, as in Europe, a great many countries actually remained neutral on this issue. If we just assume the same percentage as remained neutral in Europe (about 18%), then of the 91 countries that might or might not be against invasion in 2003, 16 would be neutral. So let's estimate that the number in the group against the war was actually only about 75 (versus the 70 that were apparently in the pro-invasion camp). And just to prove I'm giving your side the benefit of the doubt in this estimate note that this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War#Opposition_in_European_ countries ) lists the countries that formally protested the prosecution of the war. There were only 54.

So again, we see that your claim that the vast majority of countries opposed our invasion is false.

Now as pointed out in http://www.pwhce.org/willing.html#maps , every single country in the world that secured its freedom from totalitarianism in the 1990s supported the invasion. Maybe that should tell you something. And who didn't? Well, among the 54 countries were Russia (still essentially controlled by the KGB), Communist China, Syria, Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Libya and Vietnam. In other words, the countries that are still despotic. Get the picture? Shouldn't we discount those countries when making a comparison of who supported the invasion and who didn't to decide whether we did the right thing? Or do you think the opinions of brutal totalitarian (even terrorist supporting) regimes should be given the same weight in this matter as western style democracies are given? I don't. Which is one reason I don't think requiring UN support for our actions is wise. As structured, UN actions are controllable by clearly hostile dictatorships.

And if we subtract countries run by dictatorships from the list of those opposed to solving the problem of Saddam by invasion, its evident immediately that more countries in the world whose opinions should actually matter to us (even if we give you the benifit of the doubt and say that number was 75) were pro-invasion than against the invasion. Thus, your statement that the vast majority of countries were against the invasion is clearly FALSE.

if we invaded we would be greeted as liberators

Now Iraqis were quickly disillusioned by the failure to stop the looting and post-war violence, but our soldiers were, in fact, greated as liberators ... at least in those regions and by those groups oppressed by Saddam's regime. Those who were pro-Saddam (i.e., the groups who'd had their thumb on the rest of the populace for several decades) were, of course, not happy. If you don't know this, then you haven't listened to the soldiers and journalists who were there ... or what the Iraqi people themselves said and wrote. Or is this is just another example where the democRAT left is trying to rewrite history? Or do you democrats insist that a dictator and his supporters be happy whenever we depose one? :rolleyes:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030408-army-101st-najaf.htm "AN NAJAF, Iraq (Army News Service, April 8, 2003) - The smiles and cheers of a liberated populace greeted the soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) as they secured the city of Najaf in the first days of April."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=35907 "Iraq: Were we greeted as 'liberators'?, April 27, 2006, By Larry Elder"

And by the way, despite a period later on, when perhaps Americans were not viewed that way, they are being viewed that way again. Right now.

http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=ODdmMmExYTIyNDQyOTQ2ZDRlMzYzMzhmYjkyZTdkN2E= "'Re-Liberators’ A progress report from Iraq ... snip ... A top U.S. general puts it aptly when he says, “In some ways, our soldiers have come to be seen as re-liberators.” In 2006, we watched Iraq descend into a sectarian hell that killed thousands and chased millions from the country. We stayed in our large bases and stuck by our plan of handing over control to Iraqi security forces, even though they manifestly weren’t ready for it. Iraq’s year of torment, and our year of shame, began to change with the surge. Chronically undermanned, we added more than 30,000 troops to our contingent of 140,000. As important as the increased numbers was what we did with them. American troops got out into the neighborhoods, establishing joint security stations and combat outposts. Americans now live among the population. “We don’t commute to work,” says Gen. Rick Lynch of the Third Infantry Division in Baghdad. Almost every indicator of violence is headed in the right direction."

In a previous post (which you ignored), I quoted statistics from the most recent poll of the Iraqi people. The majority clearly want us to remain and clearly believe we did the right thing in toppling Saddam. You democrats need to deal with the events as they are today. If you (or Obama) can't do that, then you shouldn't be running the government. If you won't listen to the experts, you shouldn't be running the government. Period.

[gdnp]

A lot of words, BeAChooser. Starting with the first paragraph, you attempt to deflect my criticism that the entire war was based on the lies of the Bush administration by making unsubstantiated and in the end IRRELEVANT claims about lies by various Democrats. The fact remains that the Bush administration distorted and selectively quoted intelligence and lied to the American people and the world about our degree of certainty on the existence of WMDs. Did the Hungarian intelligence service independently examine ALL the data the Bush administration had before deciding to join the Coalition of the Willing? Or did they believe the same lies and half-truths that Bush told the congress?

Iraq was not invaded because Saddam was a brutal dictator oppressing his population. They were invaded because Bush claimed they were a clear and present danger with WMDs and that he had collaborated with the 9/11 terrorists. Neither of these claims have proven to be true. So as I said, the whole war was predicated on Bush lies. Whether 2 countries or 200 countries supported the invasion, and whether 2 Americans or 200,000,000 Americans supported the invasion, is IRRELEVANT, because the support would not have been there were it not for the lies about the WMDs and 9/11 terrorist connections.

Your claims to broad European support can be debunked on many grounds.
1) the governments were pressured by Washington to participate OR ELSE
2) governments often participated despite strong domestic opposition
3) support was often token and logistical so Washington could pump up the numbers. Tell me, what was the percentage of combat troops supplied by the US an Britain in the second Gulf war vs. the first? Here is what is quoted in Wikipedia:
The media in the U.S. has been known to use the term U.S.-led coalition to describe this force, as around 93% of the troops are from the United States.[1] The majority of nations that deployed troops either confined their men to their bases[2] due to widespread violence, or issued specific orders to avoid hostile engagement (especially true of the Spanish commanded Plus Ultra Brigade).[3]

Let's see...the US accounts for 5% of the world population, and supplied 93% of the troops, with the US and Britain supplying almost ALL of the combat troops. This is not what I call broad support: this is what I call token support to try to stay in the Bush administration's good graces.

The last I read the current Senate bill calls for 153 billion dollars to support current operations. Yeah, I know, some of this is for Afghanistan. How much is your "coalition of the willing" kicking in to fund this war they support, now that their euro is worth $1.57, up from $1.07 in March 2003?

[jberryhill]

There's no evidence that Obama's uncle ever liberated a concentration camp.

I'd like to introduce you, and other scum, to my father:

http://www.johnberryhill.com/wwb.jpg

My father fought in the 89th Infantry Division - the Rolling W - the Rock of the Marne - in Europe, and was also among the soldiers that liberated the Ordruff camp along with Barack Obama's uncle Charles Paine.

When I was in about first grade, I found my father's photo album from the war. I had no idea what I was looking at when I got to the page of photos he took at Ordruff, I certainly didn't know the name of the place until much later, but what I saw in those photographs, what my father NEVER spoke about, was utterly horrific. The only response to my shock at finding them was that the photo album was stored somewhere else in the house, and I'd learn about it "when you are older".

http://www.89infdivww2.org/ohrdruf/index.htm

The creeps that are trying to minimize the service of the 89th Infantry Division don't know what they are talking about, and don't deserve to be called Americans.

Screw you and your "flag pin patriotism".

[BeAChooser]

Starting with the first paragraph, you attempt to deflect my criticism that the entire war was based on the lies of the Bush administration

Specifically which lies are you claiming? I have a suspicion those weren't lies but different interpretations of data than yours. I have a suspicion you just don't like actions and policy contrary to your belief system. That's not lying, that's just a difference of opinion. Funny how democrats always think that anyone who disagrees with them is lying and evil. :D

by making unsubstantiated and in the end IRRELEVANT claims about lies by various Democrats.

I don't think there is any doubt that Bill Clinton lied to literally everyone he could have lied to, gdnp. Even democrat Senator Diane Feinstein, who offered her home for a meeting between Obama and Hillary the other day, authored a censure resolution against Bill Clinton right AFTER he was *acquitted* by the Senate that included this statement:

"Whereas [the] president of the United States, deliberately misled and deceived the American people, and people in all branches of the United States government;"

Sorry, but there's no question that Bill Clinton lied on numerous occasions to numerous people ... including statements under oath. And the fact that most democrats continued to support him even after that became obvious is entirely relevant given that your complaint now is that Bush lied. It shows your own hypocrisy.

The fact remains that the Bush administration distorted and selectively quoted intelligence and lied to the American people and the world about our degree of certainty on the existence of WMDs.

Administrations selectively quote intelligence in order to shape public opinion all the time. Do you think the Clinton administration didn't selectively quote and distort intelligence when it came to Kosova? You think they had no one telling them that many of the claims they were telling the public as if they were fact were not certain AT ALL? I'm curious. Did you ever make a post challenging our actions in Kosovo? Yes or no?

Or do you believe there is never a dissenting voice in the intelligence community or that there is 100% certainty about anything? If so, I hate to break it to you ... there are always voices that question given intelligence. There is always some doubt. But it isn't the job of the President or US government to inform the public or world as to every scrap of intelligence or doubt they have. That's a very naive view of their job.

Their job is to protect the US and its citizens ... to make tough decisions and to err on the side of caution if that's what is necessary. That's what we pay them to do. In this case, by far the bulk of the intelligence pointed to Saddam's regime having WMD and ongoing WMD programs. Intelligence pointed to friendly contact with the terrorist group that attacked us on 9/11. Continuing contacts. We also knew that Saddam's regime applauded the 9/11 attacks, was acting as if it still had WMD and was making bellicose statements against the US. Were we 100% sure that Iraq had large quantities of WMD and was going to give them to al-Qaeda? Of course not. But the consequences of Iraqi WMD getting into the hands of those terrorists were so grave that when Saddam's regime refused to fully cooperate with inspectors and abide by the agreement they had signed to end the first Gulf War, it was the RESPONSIBILITY of the President to err on the side of caution and make sure they did abide by them ... by taking down the regime. You don't like that action so you label it lying. But I call it acting prudent and being responsible. In contrast, I interpret the actions of many democrats at the end as rank partisanship. And I think nations like France and Germany were motivated by greed and fear of what we'd discover (and did discover) if we actually invaded. That's why they got cold feet.

Just because you don't like the interpretation the Bush administration drew from the intelligence that was gathered doesn't mean they lied. They just made a decision based on that data (pro and con) that is different from the one you would have made (I suppose by listening to the minority ;) ). They then presented a case to motivate the public and world to their cause. It's utterly naive to think that they would have said "here's our case against Saddam but we aren't 100% certain". Rule #1 for motivating others is to sound confident. Certainly Clinton didn't show any doubt in Kosovo. Did you object then? Have you objected since? Or are you just being a hypocrit? :D

Did the Hungarian intelligence service independently examine ALL the data the Bush administration had before deciding to join the Coalition of the Willing?

It is also not the job of the US government to share all its data with other countries. That belief is very naive. If Obama is going to do that, he will be badly played by the bad guys. Now that you can take to the bank. You also ignore the fact that many of these countries possessed their own intelligence networks and they still concluded that Saddam's regime was a menace that needed eliminating. Do you know the French had better contacts inside Iraq than we did and as late as October 2002 they were making statements like this:

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

Iraq was not invaded because Saddam was a brutal dictator oppressing his population. They were invaded because Bush claimed they were a clear and present danger with WMDs and that he had collaborated with the 9/11 terrorists.

COMPLETELY FALSE. Bush told the public why we were going to invade Iraq, if Iraq didn't cooperate, in his January 2003 State Of The Union address (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html ). He told us it was to prevent Iraq from BECOMING an imminent threat. He never claimed it was because they collaborated with the 9/11 terrorists. And he most certainly did lay out the case against that government for it's brutal oppression of it's populace. In fact, he said "tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation."

Neither of these claims have proven to be true.

That's YOUR opinion. My conclusion (and that of many others) is that Iraq was a very dangerous threat to this country and that the post invasion inspections did prove it. Granted, they didn't turn up large numbers of WMD but that may be because they'd been removed from the country. The ISG reported that they had a credible source indicating that WMD related materials were moved to Syria shortly before the war. "We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," David Kay said. "But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme." The truth is that we still don't know what the 50-75 vehicle, guarded truck convoys moving to Syria before the war contained. Would you tell us?

In fact Duelfer, who replaced Kay as head of the ISG, stated after the ISG effort was finished that the "ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war." He said "Whether Syria received military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other reasons has yet to be determined" but "there was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation." But Duelfer said he was unable to complete that aspect of the probe because "the declining security situation limited and finally halted this investigation. The results remain inconclusive".

It is hypocrisy how your side says that because Bush didn't have 100 percent certainty before he acted and never shared the doubts they had he is a liar ... yet your side claims with 100 percent certainty that Iraq was no threat and had no WMD ... even though the head of the inspection team stated the above!

The truth is that the ISG did turn up items that Iraq was not supposed to have and had even denied having ... like that still viable binary sarin warhead that was used in an IED. The ISG said "the existence of this binary weapon not only raises questions about the number of viable chemical weapons remaining in Iraq and raises the possibility that a larger number of binary, long-lasting chemical weapons still exist."

The truth is that David Kay concluded that Iraq was even more of a threat than anyone imagined before the invasion from the standpoint of being a possible source of WMD to terrorists. That's because Iraq didn't even seem to have control of its WMD arsenal and materials, and because Saddam was apparently being lied to by those running some of the WMD programs.

The truth is that the ISG concluded Iraq destroyed files, computers and facilities thought to be related to WMD just prior to, during and even after the invasion. Why would they do that if there was nothing there, gdnp? Why would ISG inspectors and those they sought to interview post invasion have been targeted for assassination (that was the claim of the ISG) if Iraq was hiding nothing? What were in those trucks? Any response?

Furthermore, even with what they found, the ISG concluded that once sanctions were removed (and don't delude yourself into thinking they wouldn't have been had Iraq received a clean bill of health and we not invaded), Iraq would only have needed a few months to rebuild its mustard gas arsenal and perhaps a year to restock with nerve gas munitions. Plus Iraq retained the seed stock, knowledge and equipment needed to quickly restart its biological munitions program. Here's what Duelfer told Congress in 2004: "By 2003, Iraq would have been able to produce mustard agent in a period of months and nerve agent in less than a year or two. ... snip ... What is clear is that Saddam retained his notions of the use of force and had experience that demonstrated the utility of WMD. He was making progress in eroding sanctions and, had it not been for the events of 9-11-2001, things would have taken a different course for the Regime. Most senior members of the Regime and scientists assumed that the programs would begin in earnest when sanctions ended---and sanctions were eroding. ... snip ... A variety of questions about Iraqi WMD capabilities and intentions remain unanswered, even after extensive investigation by ISG. For example, we cannot yet definitively say whether or not WMD materials were transferred out of Iraq before the war. Neither can we definitively answer some questions about possible retained stocks." Not the picture you and democrats are trying to present.

You claim that Iraq was cooperating with inspectors but do you realize that even as late as March of 2003, UNMOVIC was STILL seeking interviews with people and Iraq was preventing them. Blix noted that "There have been reports, denied from the Iraqi side, that proscribed activities are conducted underground." Denied by the Iraqi side. Yet the ISG did indeed discover proscribed underground labs after the invasion. Blix noted "the Iraqi side tried to persuade us that the Al Samoud 2 missiles they have declared fall within the permissible range set by the Security Council." Well they didn't and it turns out the Iraqis had plans for much longer range missiles in the works. Yet you and the democrats continue to try and rewrite history, regurgitating the fiction (or should we say LIE) that Iraq was no threat and had already been disarmed.

Your claims to broad European support can be debunked on many grounds.
1) the governments were pressured by Washington to participate OR ELSE
2) governments often participated despite strong domestic opposition
3) support was often token and logistical so Washington could pump up the numbers.

ROTFLOL! Your initial claim was that the vast majority of countries were against the invasion. Sorry but I showed that's clearly untrue. Insisting they were "forced" in some manner to support it strikes me as desperation on your part. And you haven't proven that in any of the supporting countries the vast majority of the populace opposed the invasion. And whether the support was token or not is irrelevant. You didn't make a claim specifying the amount of support that qualified as support. Furthermore, many of the countries against the invasion also offered only token support to that viewpoint. I didn't see them offering resolutions to condemn the US or offering Saddam troops or material to repel the evil American invaders. And by the way, ours was the major contribution to the effort because we have the largest military and economy ... by far. We didn't need troops as much as we needed moral support. And we got it ... more in fact than the "Friends of Saddam" coalition got. :D

How much is your "coalition of the willing" kicking in to fund this war they support, now that their euro is worth $1.57, up from $1.07 in March 2003?

Gee ... should we have demanded that the rest of the world fund our operations in WW2? Or Kosovo? And please prove that the relative value of the euro to the US dollar has anything to do with what is being spent in Iraq. In fact, prove that had we not invaded we wouldn't have already spent more containing Saddam, fighting the al-qaeda terrorists we killed in Iraq but who would now be out committing mischief, and repairing the damage done to US infrastruction by those terrorists since we decided to let them make the battleground our own streets?

By the way ... here's more evidence that we are winning and that Obama is deluded about sitting down and "talking" to the leadership of Iran:

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2008/ss_iraq0215_06_05.asp "BAGHDAD — The U.S. military in Iraq has captured the deputy military chief of the Iranian-sponsored Hizbullah, coalition officials said. Iraqi sources said the U.S. Army has arrested the No. 2 figure in Hizbullah's military wing. ,,, snip ... The U.S.-led coalition has reported the capture of a senior Iranian operative south of Baghdad. In a coalition statement, the operative was described as a 'primary weapons smuggler and financier for Iranian-backed enemy fighters.' ... snip ... The U.S. military also reported the arrest of another senior Iranian operative. The unidentified operative, captured east of Kut, was identified as a Special Groups member and 'the primary weapons smuggler and financier for Iranian-backed enemy elements in that area.'"

:D

[varwoche]

Granted, they didn't turn up large numbers of WMD but that may be because they'd been removed from the country. From the Baghdad Bob School of Reality. (Except wordier.)

[BeAChooser]

From the Baghdad Bob School of Reality. (Except wordier.)

Tells us varwoche.

Why did Saddam not cooperate with inspectors? He'd still be in power if he'd have done that. Why obstruct inspectors every step of the way?

Why did the ISG find clear evidence that before, during and even after the war, Iraq sanitized files, computers and facilities thought to be related to WMD ... if Iraq had no WMD?

Why did the Iraqi regime threaten the family members of those involved in Iraq's WMD programs with death if that family member cooperated with the UN inspectors ... if Iraq had no WMD?

Why were people the ISG wanted to interview assassinated and why were ISG inspectors the target of threats if Iraq had no WMD? After all, if they'd have proven Iraq had none then that would only have made Saddam and his regime look innocent. So why were they targeted by Saddam's holdouts?

Why were Iraqi military commanders heard talking about hiding materials from inspectors ... if Iraq had no WMD? What were they hiding?

Why did Iraq delay UN inspectors from getting to inspection sites after they were announced ... if Iraq had no WMD? This happened over and over. What was going on at those sites? The same thing that went on the decade before when inspectors have clear proof that the Iraqi regime was removing WMD related materials from the sites before inspections?

What was in the trucks seen moving to Syria in armed convoys before the war?

And surely you don't deny that Saddam planned to fully reconstitute his WMD arsenal the moment UN and US oversight ended ... and that in that event Iraq would have very quickly rearmed with chemical and biological weapons. Surely you don't believe that had UN inspectors given Iraq a clean bill of health all would have been well. Surely you aren't that naive. Why that would almost exceed the naivity of Bahgdad Bob and Obama. :D

[jberryhill]

Why did Saddam not cooperate with inspectors?

He apparently did not want it proven that he didn't have them. There can be several reasons for that.

Why would the US never commit to a formal "no first strike" policy? Because the Russians had a numerical advantage in conventional weapons in Europe, and maintaining uncertainty relative to our actual policy was strategically advantageous. The Soviets declined to call the bluff.

[BeAChooser]

Quote:
Why did Saddam not cooperate with inspectors?

He apparently did not want it proven that he didn't have them.

I see. He was more worried about being shown not to have WMD than the likelihood that hundreds of thousands of American troops gathering on his border were going to topple his regime and perhaps kill him. :rolleyes:

Why would the US never commit to a formal "no first strike" policy? Because the Russians had a numerical advantage in conventional weapons in Europe,

Did they? I think Gulf War 1 showed that numerical advantage wasn't really all that dramatic. And our threat to use nuclear weapons to stop a Soviet invasion of Europe, if necessary, wasn't a bluff. :)

[jberryhill]

I see. He was more worried about being shown not to have WMD than the likelihood that hundreds of thousands of American troops gathering on his border were going to topple his regime and perhaps kill him.

He may very well have believed that uncertainty about his possession of WMD was the thing that was keeping them from invading. Clearly, he did not have them, and clearly he was acting cagey about inspections. So, one must fit a hypothesis to the facts, rather than basing an inference on less than all of the facts. Perhaps you assume him to be more rational than I do.

Of course, I assume you would find it equally silly to believe he may have also considered the uncertainty in his capability to be useful relative to internal factions within Iraq.

[jberryhill]

Did they? I think Gulf War 1 showed that numerical advantage wasn't really all that dramatic.

Gulf War 1 demonstrated that the Iraqi Army was not much of a fighting force regardless of numbers. The Soviets had the capability to push more tanks through the Fulda gap than Nato would have had the ability to stop.

[jberryhill]

....and, according to Saddam's FBI debriefer, he lied about WMD's in order to deter Iran.

http://www.youtube.com/v/32LnjWJTHcg

[BeAChooser]

He may very well have believed that uncertainty about his possession of WMD was the thing that was keeping them from invading.

Bush may have "very well believed" Iraq still had WMD but democrats label him a liar. Odd how democrats are more tolerant of Saddam than Bush. :D

Don't you know that the ISG, in interviews with Iraqi leaders, didn't find deterring us to be the reason Saddam didn't cooperate? I can't imagine anyone would have thought we wouldn't invade given that the whole reason our military was massing on Iraq's borders was to invade IF it didn't come clean on WMD. That was stated over and over.

Clearly, he did not have them,

No, that's not clear at all. I suggest you reread my posts above where I quote the ISG on that. And answer the other questions I asked.

Perhaps you assume him to be more rational than I do.

On the contrary. I think he was crazy as a loon. Which is why we could not take the chance that Saddam's regime still had WMD nor allow it any opportunity in the future to acquire more. Remember, this is a man who APPLAUDED the 9/11 attacks and even put up murals celebrating it.

[BeAChooser]

Gulf War 1 demonstrated that the Iraqi Army was not much of a fighting force regardless of numbers.

The model for the Iraqi Army in 1991 was the Soviet Army. That's why the result of that war was so disturbing to the Soviets.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0416/p06s01-woiq.html "Iraqi defeat jolts Russian military ... snip ... The Iraqi Army - which was cloned from the Red Army in the final decades of the Soviet Union - mounted only a feeble defense before falling apart. "The key conclusion we must draw from the latest Gulf war is that the obsolete structure of the Russian armed forces has to be urgently changed," says Vladimir Dvorkin, head of the Russian Defense Ministry's official think tank on strategic nuclear policy. "The gap between our capabilities and those of the Americans has been revealed, and it is vast." ... snip ... The swift victory by mobile, high-tech American forces over heavily armored Iraqi troops dug in to defend large cities like Baghdad has jolted many Russian military planners. "The Iraqi Army was a replica of the Russian Army, and its defeat was not predicted by our generals," says Vitaly Shlykov, a former deputy defense minister of Russia. ... snip ... Early in the Iraq war, the Russian online newspaper Gazeta.ru reported that two retired Soviet generals may have played a key role in designing Iraq's defenses. The paper published photos of Vladimir Achalov, an expert in urban warfare, and Igor Maltsev, a specialist in air defenses, receiving medals from Iraq's defense minister two weeks before the war began. Russian TV later quoted General Maltsev as saying "the American invaders will be buried in the streets of Baghdad.""

:D

The Soviets had the capability to push more tanks through the Fulda gap than Nato would have had the ability to stop.

Which perhaps is why our threat to use nuclear weapons was not a bluff. But who really knows who'd have won conventionally. War is often full of surprises.

[BeAChooser]

....and, according to Saddam's FBI debriefer, he lied about WMD's in order to deter Iran.

Does that really make sense to you? Iran wasn't sitting on the border with an army ready to invade and planes ready to bomb. Iran wasn't demanding that Iraq prove it had no WMD. Seems to me that if Saddam was more worried about Iran than THAT threat, he was even crazier than anyone dreamed. And therefore more dangerous.

By the way, were we supposed to know that Saddam didn't have WMD when he was claiming he did? And when he later turned around and suddenly began claiming he didn't have WMD, were we supposed to just believe him? Is that the way Obama will be conducting his foreign policy? :rolleyes:

[Tricky]

Why did Saddam not cooperate with inspectors? He'd still be in power if he'd have done that. Why obstruct inspectors every step of the way?

Why did the ISG find clear evidence that before, during and even after the war, Iraq sanitized files, computers and facilities thought to be related to WMD ... if Iraq had no WMD?
My feeling is that Saddam wanted his rivals to think he had WMDs. You realize, I'm guessing, that he was in a very precarious position. The Sunni-Shiite conflict as well as the conflict with the Kurds made for a very uneasy dictatorship. As the US found out, all sides were willing to do just about anything. The reason Saddam stayed on top was because he was a brutal strongman. If he had looked weak, he wouldn't have stayed on top. He gambled that the US would back off. He lost that bet. It might have been better if he hadn't. I'm not crazy about toppling a brutal strongman by becoming a more brutal, stronger strongman.

Why did the ISG find clear evidence that before, during and even after the war, Iraq sanitized files, computers and facilities thought to be related to WMD ... if Iraq had no WMD?
Because at one time, Saddam was trying to get WMDs. Few people deny this. In fact at one time, he had them. He used them against the Kurds, an action which drew a big yawn from the Reagan administration. It is not terribly surprising that he would want to "sanitize" those records. What they don't find in those files is that Saddam had any WMDs in the time when Bushco was claiming that he did.

Why did the Iraqi regime threaten the family members of those involved in Iraq's WMD programs with death if that family member cooperated with the UN inspectors ... if Iraq had no WMD?
This is anecdotal. But even if it contains a shred of truth, the reasoning is the same. Saddam needed to keep his weakness secret from his enemies.

Why were Iraqi military commanders heard talking about hiding materials from inspectors ... if Iraq had no WMD? What were they hiding?
Where are these commanders? Why haven't they testified? After all, they don't have to fear Saddam now? Where are the scientists who were working on the weapons? Where are the many hundreds of thousands of people who must have known where at least a few of them were? Saddam couldn't have assassinated everybody who knew about them. He'd have no one left to use the WMDs.

No, BAC, if Saddam actually had WMDs at the time of the invasion, it is obvious that someone would have stepped forward and pointed us to some of them. After all, he wasn't universally loved. Why would these people continue to protect him?

Why did Iraq delay UN inspectors from getting to inspection sites after they were announced ... if Iraq had no WMD? This happened over and over. What was going on at those sites? The same thing that went on the decade before when inspectors have clear proof that the Iraqi regime was removing WMD related materials from the sites before inspections?
Same reasoning. Saddam was trying to appear to still be a power. How long would he stay a power if he told everybody, "Hey, I'm really weak. I got nothing to keep you from staging a coup." But regardless of his reasoning, the US was wrong to decide that because he was stonewalling, they had good reason to invade. UN weapons inspectors agree with this, so Bush can't really use the weapons inspections as an excuse. He ignored their advice.

What was in the trucks seen moving to Syria in armed convoys before the war?
Do you have any evidence it was WMDs? Anything whatsoever? If I had to guess, I'd say it was gold or other liquid assets. Have WMDs shown up in Syria?

And surely you don't deny that Saddam planned to fully reconstitute his WMD arsenal the moment UN and US oversight ended ... and that in that event Iraq would have very quickly rearmed with chemical and biological weapons. Surely you don't believe that had UN inspectors given Iraq a clean bill of health all would have been well. Surely you aren't that naive. Why that would almost exceed the naivety of Baghdad Bob and Obama. :D
No, he wouldn't have been quickly rearmed. He was being watched rather closely. Saddam was not a nice guy. He needed to be watched. That was being done.

You don't invade a country because they might later be a threat. If so, we should invade China right now. We're pretty sure they have WMDs and are not averse to brutalizing their neighbors and non-compliant citizens. Or does this logic only work on oil-rich countries?

[gdnp]

Bush may have "very well believed" Iraq still had WMD but democrats label him a liar. Odd how democrats are more tolerant of Saddam than Bush. :D

Bush and members of the Bush administration did not state that they believed that Iraq had WMDs, they stated, on many occasions, that Iraq had WMDs:

A few Bush administration quotes:

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. - Dick Cheney, speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

Was there no doubt?


We know for a fact that there are weapons there. - Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Jan. 9, 2003

Was it a fact?

What we know from UN inspectors over the course of the last decade is that Saddam Hussein possesses thousands of chemical warheads, that he possesses hundreds of liters of very dangerous toxins that can kill millions of people. - White House spokesman Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, Jan. 26, 2003


And we found how much?

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. - George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003


hadn't the CIA had already determined these documents were forged at the time Bush said this?

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. - George W. Bush, address to the U.S., March 17, 2003

No doubt? That's not what the CIA documents said...

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And….as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them. - Gen. Tommy Franks, press conference, March 22, 2003

Oh, that pesky "no doubt" again, along with "will be identified, found". Still waiting...

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.- Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman, The Washington Post, March 23, 2003

Boy, these guys are confident. Sound like Big Brown's trainer. Except he wasn't starting a war...

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat. - Donald Rumsfeld, ABC interview, March 30, 2003

I guess "we think we know where they might be, if they exist" doesn't rally the troops the same way...

Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find - and there will be plenty. - Robert Kagan, The Washington Post, April 9, 2003

Or none. Oops. I forgot. Didn't they turn up one rusty mortar shell left over from the Iran/Iraq war? My bad.

I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now. - Colin Powell, remarks to reporters, May 4, 2003

Bottom line: the president and the entire administration claimed that they were certain that Iraq had WMDs. Not that it was possible. Not that it was likely. Not that it was almost certain. Certain. No doubt. Stated as fact, not opinion.

They were not certain. They lied.

[Kestrel]

No, he wouldn't have been quickly rearmed. He was being watched rather closely. Saddam was not a nice guy. He needed to be watched. That was being done.

The argument for going to war with Iraq was a classic bifurcation fallacy. The only options presented were going to war now or doing nothing. That this bogus argument was widely accepted shows how far away from logic and reason our nation had drifted.

[Tricky]

Bottom line: the president and the entire administration claimed that they were certain that Iraq had WMDs. Not that it was possible. Not that it was likely. Not that it was almost certain. Certain. No doubt. Stated as fact, not opinion.

They were not certain. They lied.
Before the Bush apologists trot out all the quotes that we have seen before about others, including prominent liberal Democrats, about how they were sure Saddam had WMDs, let me say that it is not so much the lie that is the issue. It is the way the lie is used. Prior to his PR campaingn for the war, nobody but Bush and his cronies felt it was necessary to invade Iraq. It was trumpeted and jingoized and repeated until it would have been positively unamerican (and politically fatal) to oppose it. Regardless of what anyone else might have said, either lies or based on bad information, the most important thing is what was done. I do not believe Al Gore or virtually anyone else would have invaded Iraq. This is Bush's war, part and parcel.

[gdnp]

Prior to his PR campaingn for the war, nobody but Bush and his cronies felt it was necessary to invade Iraq. It was trumpeted and jingoized and repeated until it would have been positively unamerican (and politically fatal) to oppose it.

Not only unamerican, but un-American ally. Bush called in their chits and twisted arms until many European governments signed on despite the opposition of their populations. Their lack of enthusiasm demonstrated by their commitment of trivial numbers of troops, most of whom were barred from combat. Although opposition was not politically fatal to France and Germany (probably quite popular at home), it did strain their relations to the US.

Oh, I forgot. France and Germany opposed the invasion not because they thought it was a bad idea, but because they had sweetheart deals with Saddam. :rolleyes:

[BeAChooser]

My feeling is that Saddam wanted his rivals to think he had WMDs.

For what purpose at that point? He was about to be invaded AND DEPOSED if he didn't prove he had no WMD. Think about that. Remember, we are talking about his not cooperating in March of 2003, after the deadline where we'd warned him that he'd suffer severe consequences if he didn't come clean. We are talking about a timeperiod when we had a very large military presence ready to go and provide the consequences. How in the world could he have been so deluded as to ignore that and worry about what his rivals (Iran? The Kurds? The Shiites?) thought he had?

He gambled that the US would back off.

If he was gambling, then he was gambling because of the way democrats in this country were acting at the time. He was playing on the same weaknesses that democrats still display today ... vis a vis Iran. Unfortunately, it wasn't a democrat in the oval office but a republican with a bit more backbone and resolve. I guess if your right he was foolish enough to listen to those democrats, just like democrats may now be foolish enough to listen to Obama on Iraq, Iran and the economy. :D

I'm not crazy about toppling a brutal strongman by becoming a more brutal, stronger strongman.

Oh NONSENSE. It's statements like this that will prove the undoing of the Obama campaign. Claiming Bush was worse than Saddam. Do you folks ever really listen to yourself? :rolleyes:


Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Why did the ISG find clear evidence that before, during and even after the war, Iraq sanitized files, computers and facilities thought to be related to WMD ... if Iraq had no WMD?

Because at one time, Saddam was trying to get WMDs.

At one time? I hate to tell you but they were still interested in getting WMD. Just read the ISG report. That's the problem.

It is not terribly surprising that he would want to "sanitize" those records.

Why? Like you said, we already knew Iraq had them back then. Finding documents that proved that wouldn't have caused a stir. They would not have feared that sort of discovery. Not to the degree that they continued efforts to sanitize AFTER the invasion. Your logic makes no sense. What is more logical is that Iraq was trying to hide more recent activities and the disposition of current stockpiles ... even if they only numbered a few dozen warheads.

What they don't find in those files is that Saddam had any WMDs in the time when Bushco was claiming that he did.

Perhaps because they were destroyed. Like the ISG said, Iraq systematically sanitized files, computers and facilities thought to be involved in their WMD program.


Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Why did the Iraqi regime threaten the family members of those involved in Iraq's WMD programs with death if that family member cooperated with the UN inspectors ... if Iraq had no WMD?

This is anecdotal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/28/iraq.jackstraw "March 15 2003 report: Iraqi non-compliance with UNSCR, This is a copy of the report released by the foreign secretary, Jack Straw ... snip ... There is evidence that Iraqi scientists have been intimidated into refusing interviews outside Iraq. They - and their families - have been threatened with execution if they deviate from the official line."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html "March 2003 ... snip ... We know from multiple intelligence sources that Iraqi weapons scientists continue to be threatened with harm should they cooperate with U.N. inspectors. Scientists are required by Iraqi intelligence to wear concealed recording devices during interviews, and hotels where interviews take place are bugged by the regime."

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7658.doc.htm "In early December, Saddam Hussein had all Iraqi scientists warned of the serious consequences that they and their families would face if they revealed any sensitive information to the inspectors.* They were forced to sign documents acknowledging that divulging information was punishable by death.* He also said that scientists should be told not to agree to leave Iraq; doing so meant they would be treated as spies. He noted that, in mid-November, just before the inspectors returned, Iraqi experts were ordered to report to the headquarters of the Special Security Organization for Counter-Intelligence for training, which focused on evasion methods, interrogation resistance techniques, and how to mislead inspectors.* Among other points:* weapons at a facility in mid-December were replaced by Iraqi intelligence agents who were to deceive inspectors about the work being done there; on order from Saddam Hussein, Iraqi officials issued a false death certificate for one scientist, and he was sent into hiding."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/7-200203.htm "An Iraqi engineer described only as "close to several weapons scientists" has defected to an unnamed European country and is providing "new and credible leads," abcnews.go.com reported on 10 February. The defector reportedly told ABC News that Iraqi scientists and researchers are under extreme pressure from Iraqi authorities and are too afraid to speak freely to UN weapons inspectors. "They [scientists] were scared and threatened in different ways, including threatening to go after their families if they leave Iraq to meet with inspectors and going after their relatives if their families go with them and going after them even if they were in exile," the purported defector added. He said many of the scientists working within Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction (WMD) program are now being housed with their families at a secret compound in downtown Baghdad. He added that scientists have been forced to sign two documents -- one stating that they will fully accommodate UN inspectors, the second stating that they are "legally responsible" and will not divulge any Iraqi "secrets." "The first pledge is public and a copy is sent to the UN, while the second is only for some Iraqi security agencies," the defector reportedly said. (Kathleen Ridolfo)"

Tell me ... do you honestly believe that the scientists weren't threatened given all we know about Saddam's regime?

But even if it contains a shred of truth, the reasoning is the same. Saddam needed to keep his weakness secret from his enemies.

At the moment we were by far his biggest enemy. By acting this way he almost guaranteed that his regime would be toppled and he would die. Speculating about him worrying about some nebulous threat from his neighbors at that point is IMO reaching. :rolleyes:

Where are these commanders?

They are probably dead. We killed a lot of such commanders during the invasion. :)

Why haven't they testified? After all, they don't have to fear Saddam now? Where are the scientists who were working on the weapons?

You seem to forget that holdouts of Saddam and others who still want to return Iraq's control to the former regime have been waging a rather bloody campaign against anyone (and their families) who cooperates with the US. Furthermore, there might be a natural reluctance to connect oneself with a WMD program that was used in genocidal ways against Iraqis. Already a few people have been executed for being involved in that. It's quite reasonable that any scientists who were involved in that program have decided to keep a low profile and try to get on with their lives doing something else. More reasonable than thinking Saddam was a good guy who'd given up his bad ways and desire for WMD.

No, BAC, if Saddam actually had WMDs at the time of the invasion, it is obvious that someone would have stepped forward and pointed us to some of them.

You seem to forget that despite the threats made against anyone who cooperated with the ISG, the ISG said that they have a credible witness who says WMD materials were moved to Syria before the war. There are also others, such as General Sada, who say this happened. You seemed to want to just ignore these facts because you are so eager to make Bush a bigger evil than Saddam was. :rolleyes:


Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Why did Iraq delay UN inspectors from getting to inspection sites after they were announced ... if Iraq had no WMD? This happened over and over. What was going on at those sites? The same thing that went on the decade before when inspectors have clear proof that the Iraqi regime was removing WMD related materials from the sites before inspections?

Same reasoning. Saddam was trying to appear to still be a power.

Your logic is spurious. Saddam was under the gun. Either cooperate and prove Iraq had ended its WMD work or be deposed. He was even given the last minute choice to leave Iraq and refused. It's hard to fault Bush for seeing his behavior has hiding a WMD program given his past behavior where it came to WMD. Bush did the right thing by acting when he did rather letting UN inspectors, who history proves were fooled when there were thousands of inspectors in Iraq be fooled again when there were only a few hundred, give Iraq a clean bill of health that France, Germany, Russia and Saddam would have used to force the end of sanctions and oversight.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
What was in the trucks seen moving to Syria in armed convoys before the war?

Do you have any evidence it was WMDs? Anything whatsoever?

As a matter of fact yes.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21489


Glazov: What exactly is the evidence that Iraq moved its WMD into Syria?

Mauro: It has been confirmed across the board that 18-wheelers were seen going into Syria before the war, crossing the border soon after Iraqi intelligence replaced the border guards and cleared nearby areas for their passage. There are also eyewitness reports of the trucks going into Syria, and eyewitness reports of their burial in Lebanon.

The trucks with the weapons were tracked to three locations in Syria and Lebanon's Bekaa Valley, currently controlled by the Syrians, Iranians and Hezbollah. Sources I've spoken with that have seen satellite photos of the movements confirm that the WMD in Syria are at military bases, while the ones in Lebanon are buried. A fourth site in Syria, the al-Safir WMD and missile site, should also be looked at. From spring to summer 2002, there was a lot of construction here involving the expansion of underground complexes.

We have tremendous testimony as well, by General Georges Sada, the former second-in-command of Saddam's Air Force that 56 flights took place on converted Iraqi Airways planes in the summer of 2002 to transport weapons, along with a ground shipment. He claims to know the pilots involved. A second Iraqi general, Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti, in an interview I published, confirmed in detail the movement of WMD into Syria saying that discussion on such a move went back to the 1980s. He claims his sources for this include Iraqi scientists and others in the regime that were very close to him even after he defected. He confirmed to me that Russian vehicles, including ones equipped to handle hazardous materials, were used.

****************

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040816-011235-4438r.htm

Saddam agents on Syria border helped move banned materials

By Rowan Scarborough

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Saddam Hussein periodically removed guards on the Syrian border and replaced them with his own intelligence agents who supervised the movement of banned materials between the two countries, U.S. investigators have discovered.

... snip ...

Two defense sources told The Washington Times that the ISG has interviewed Iraqis who told of Saddam's system of dispatching his trusted Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) to the border, where they would send border inspectors away.

The shift was followed by the movement of trucks in and out of Syria suspected of carrying materials banned by U.N. sanctions. Once the shipments were made, the agents would leave and the regular border guards would resume their posts.

... snip ...

In an interview in October, retired Lt. Gen. James R. Clapper Jr., who heads the U.S. agency that processes and analyzes satellite imagery, said he thinks that Saddam's underlings hid banned weapons of mass destruction before the war.

"I think personally that those below the senior leadership saw what was coming, and I think they went to some extraordinary lengths to dispose of the evidence," said Gen. Clapper, who heads the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency. "I'll call it an 'educated hunch.' "

****************

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10547


Syria Storing Iraq's WMDs
By Bill Gertz
Washington Times | October 29, 2003

Iraqi military officers destroyed or hid chemical, biological and nuclear weapons goods in the weeks before the war, the nation's top satellite spy director said yesterday.

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper, head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, said vehicle traffic photographed by U.S. spy satellites indicated that material and documents related to the arms programs were shipped to Syria.

Other goods probably were sent throughout Iraq in small quantities and documents probably were stashed in the homes of weapons scientists, Gen. Clapper told defense reporters at a breakfast.

Gen. Clapper said he is not surprised that U.S. and allied forces have not found weapons of mass destruction hidden in Iraq because "it's a big place."

"Those below the senior leadership saw what was coming, and I think they went to extraordinary lengths to dispose of the evidence," he said.


*************

http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/dod-report-50-trucks-carried-iraqi-wmd-to-syria


DoD Report: 50 Trucks Carried Iraqi WMD To Syria

The following is a translation of a newly posted Iraqi document done by an unofficial translator. The document, posted in Arabic, is from a Department Of Defense program.

In the document an Iraqi opposition source working in Syria reports on the movement of Iraqi trucks to Syria before the start of the US invasion of Iraq. It is his understanding that the trucks contained proscribed weapons of mass destruction.

***************

Have WMDs shown up in Syria?

You have to be joking. Right?

No, he wouldn't have been quickly rearmed.

That wasn't the conclusion of the ISG.

He was being watched rather closely.

Only because the sanctions and oversight were still in place. Had the inspectors given Iraq a clean bill of health there would have been overwhelming pressure to remove the sanctions (to end the death of innocent civilians) and remove controls on the sale of oil. Iraq would have had the money and freedom to purchase anything needed for WMD and delivery systems. And there were already sellers in France, Germany and Russia chomping at the bit to be the ones to supply those materials. Under such conditions, Saddam would have had no problem reconstituting his WMD programs and arsenal in short order ... just as the ISG concluded. And then, it would have been even more difficult to get the world or American public to do anything to stop him. We'd be in a real pickle today if democrats and the French had their way back in 2003.

You don't invade a country because they might later be a threat.

We invaded Iraq because they broke an agreement regarding WMD and long range delivery systems, had a history of supporting terrorists, openly applauded 9/11 terrorists and continued contact with that organization after 9/11, and did nothing to stop that terrorist organization from setting up shop in Iraq (even Baghdad). What you apparently haven't realized is that the world changed on 9/11. When millions of our citizens lives are potentially at stake from terrorist activities ... yes, we will invade a country to prevent that.

If so, we should invade China right now.

You have any evidence that China is supporting al-Qaeda and terrorists trying to acquire WMD? You have any evidence that China has lost control of its WMD programs? You have any evidence that China is violating agreements where WMD are concerned? No? I thought not.

[BeAChooser]

Bush and members of the Bush administration did not state that they believed that Iraq had WMDs, they stated, on many occasions, that Iraq had WMD

... snip ...

They were not certain. They lied.

The Administration was assured that Iraq had WMD by this nation's (and other nation's) intelligence agencies. Even by the UN inspectors. And it turns out the ISG did in fact find WMD in Iraq that Saddam's regime had either claimed they never built or that they claimed they'd destroyed. And the ISG said they have credible sources indicating WMD related items (which might include WMD warheads) were moved to Syria before the invasion. Also, the ISG found clear evidence that Iraq sanitized the files, computers and facilities thought to be related to WMD prior to, during and even after the invasion. You folks can't tell us what were in those truck convoys moving to Syria. Pardon me if I don't think you can say with 100 percent certainty (as you folks have claimed) that Iraq had no WMD. Therefore are you lying?

Obama is certain that Iran is not a serious threat and that the war in Iraq can't be won. But he can't be certain. So, by your logic, is he lying, too?

:D

[BeAChooser]

This is Bush's war, part and parce

So will you democrats give Bush all the credit when future historians decide that invading Iraq was really wise and played a fundamental role in transforming the Middle East and winning the WOT? Somehow I think not. Somehow I think you will forget your statements like the above and try to claim it was all due to the foresight and perseverance of democrats. Or will you democrats at least take the blame if you put Obama into the Whitehouse and things go markedly downhill from where they are now both in Iraq and in the WOT in general? Somehow I think not, either. :rolleyes:

[gdnp]

The Administration was assured that Iraq had WMD by this nation's (and other nation's) intelligence agencies. Even by the UN inspectors. And it turns out the ISG did in fact find WMD in Iraq that Saddam's regime had either claimed they never built or that they claimed they'd destroyed. And the ISG said they have credible sources indicating WMD related items (which might include WMD warheads) were moved to Syria before the invasion. Also, the ISG found clear evidence that Iraq sanitized the files, computers and facilities thought to be related to WMD prior to, during and even after the invasion. You folks can't tell us what were in those truck convoys moving to Syria. Pardon me if I don't think you can say with 100 percent certainty (as you folks have claimed) that Iraq had no WMD. Therefore are you lying?

Obama is certain that Iran is not a serious threat and that the war in Iraq can't be won. But he can't be certain. So, by your logic, is he lying, too?

:D

Nope. I never claimed to be certain that Iraq did not have WMDs. Please supply a quote of mine if you think I did. In fact, at the time of the invasion I thought, based on the claims of the Bush administration, that they probably did have them. I did think, however, that even if there were WMDs that the probability of their using them did not constitute a present danger of sufficient severity to justify a war. I thought with the intense scrutiny that was on Saddam he was effectively neutralized.

If there were ongoing WMD programs at the time of the invasion, thousands of people would have been involved. Would not someone come forward by now? Most were presumably Sunni, and I would think there would be dozens willing to cut a deal in exchange for passage out of Iraq.

Your claim that the weapons are in Syria and Lebanon are, basically, woo. You can throw it in there because, to the members of this forum, they are untestable. You might as well argue that they are in area 65 or on Pluto.

Convoys of trucks to Syria could have had WMDs. Or gold. or art. Or the Ark of the Covenant. Or Saddam's wives shoe collections for all I know. YOU are the one making the assertion that they contained WMDs or the equipment of his WMD program. The burden of proof is on you, not us. You ask us to believe it because the Bush administration says it is so, based on intelligence sources. Well, we know how accurate those intelligence sources were about the goings on in Iraq, don't we?

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat. - Donald Rumsfeld, ABC interview, March 30, 2003

[Dr Adequate]

So will you democrats give Bush all the credit when future historians decide that invading Iraq was really wise and played a fundamental role in transforming the Middle East and winning the WOT? I see that you have joined the Truthers, the creationists, and the folks at RaptureReady in consoling yourself by daydreaming about how one day you'll be proved right. In this instance, apparently by kidding yourself that you can read the minds of people who live in the future.

[Darth Rotor]

A lot of words that apparently just passed in one ear and out the other. Are you unaware that Obama claims that the war is lost or unwinnable? It's his reason for saying we should withdraw. So those sources you dismiss actually do relate to Obama's take because they directly contradict that assertion. Are you unaware that he claims there's no downside to withdrawing in the manner he's suggested? Some of those sources directly contradict that assertion as well. I suggest you actually try opening and reading them. :D
The biggest risk in leaving Iraq, now, is that the civil war gets nastier and spreads throughout the country, blood letting galore. It is not a certainty, but it's not unlikely either. With that coming to pass, Iran would benefit by being able to partially fill the power vacuum on land in southern Iran, while the Saudis are likely to increase their influence internally, or try to.

Is that consistent with or in contravention to American interests?

Well, what are American interests?

Will the modest amount of Iraqi oil hitting the international market increase or decrease in the case of a wider internal war in Iraq? I think it would decrease. Investment in the oil infrastructure would decrease in the short term. Chaotic internal struggles allow for further infiltration of extra national cells and actors from:

Iran
Syria
Saudi
Lybia (home of quite a few of the suicide bombers in Iraq. Source Newsweek a month or so ago)
Elsewhere

General Persian Gulf Security?

A bit of a cypher.

Iraq has a small coastline. With American security posture reverting to maritime based posture, plus the FWD deployed forces in Kuwait, in most of the PG, the oil production from the eastern side looks to continue uninterrupted into the global oil market regardless of what is going on within Iraq. Maritime interdiction remains roughly the same risk it is now, and has been for the past five years.

Political fallout among the various Gulf States the US is allied with. Most likely negative, but more a matter of degree than kind.

Risk of Iraqi factions reacting violently to Iranian infiltration, greater involvement. Odds are pretty high. Iran most likely to play as they did in Bosnia, via spec ops, agents, material support to factions friendly to them. Iran risks getting stuck in the tarbaby, as America has, if they act precipitously.

Refugee flow: increases again. Brain drain from Iraq makes for a longer term downside to its eventual economic recovery, and recapitalization of its core cash crop, oil, via infrastructure and exploration/development of substantial reserves.

Longer term: Iraq breaks, and if the US has a clue, Kurdistan stands up as a sovereign state. If the US could keep the Turks and Greeks from fighting one another for fifty years (one of NATO's signal successes over the past 50 years) we could keep the Kurds (outside of the PKK, who ought to be written off as a sacrificial lamb) and Turks from gutting one another, if we put our mind to it. ) Upside to this: the Turks pipeline to the Med for oil from Northern Iraq makes Turks hard currency again, a win win deal.

More risk.

With a civil war going on before Iraq cracks apart, as Yugoslavia did, that oil flow would likely dry up periodically, as facilities are sabotaged, and the Turks motive for intervention across the border increases. Much fun to be had on that score.

All of the instability creates an even more toxic environment, politically, for the US, at least in the short term, than the current toxic environment. The only major political upside is lowered cost and fewer dead Marines and Soldiers, and perhaps a chance to refit/reconstitute American forces within the 3-5 year time frame.

In the long term, American ability to act as enforcer/honest broker regionally would be uncertain. (If you bailed on them, will you bail on me?) That probably means more, not less, instability in the region. However, there are so many factors involved that the magic eight ball is very murky at the moment. The problem with being stuck in the tarbaby is that most of the options are ugly. It's just a matter of how ugly.

Let us presume that it is President Obama as of January 2009. He might score political points domestically by bringing them all home, but he creates a significant geo strategic risk in doing so. How he mitigates that risk, or how the alleged smart guys he brings into the administration mitigates that risk, is a complete unknown at this point.

Until I see who he's got as his "brain trust" I am left with an idealist a la Carter in the Whitehouse. This does not fill me with confidence. :p

DR

[boloboffin]

It should be noted that BeAChooser's quotes from Al Gore, September 2002, are from a speech in which he adamantly came out AGAINST the impending invasion of Iraq.

[BeAChooser]

Their lack of enthusiasm demonstrated by their commitment of trivial numbers of troops, most of whom were barred from combat.

Let's see. The 2003 invasion was supported by approximately 248,000 US Soldiers and Marines, 45,000 British soldiers, 2,000 Australian soldiers, 1,300 Spanish soldiers, 500 Danish soldiers and 194 Polish soldiers (but by August they had 2500 soldiers in Iraq). The invasion force was also supported by an estimated 50,000 Iraqi Kurdish militia troops.

I'm sure you don't think 45,000 UK troops is a trivial commitment. Or do you? Afterall, the US military as a whole is well over 5 times larger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_size_of_armed_forces ) than Britain's. And the population of the US is about 5 times theirs as well.

How about the others? The total population of Australia is about 1/14th that of the US. So on that basis, yes, 2000 soldiers doesn't equate to the same committment as ours. But this was a come as you are war. The US military had about 1.4 million active and 1.4 million reservists. Australia had about .05 million active and .02 million reserve. That's a ratio of 28 to 1 making their committment not all that "trivial".

How about Spain? Their military currently has about .18 million active and .3 million reserve members. So yes, 1300 is a smaller commitment. But then Spain's military budget was less than a 30th of ours at the time. Denmark has an army that has only 0.02 million active troops. So 500 doesn't seem that trivial a commitment to me.

How about in terms of what the US spent? In 2002 the US military budget was about 350 billion dollars. The UK's was only a 1/10th of that. The other countries' budgets were almost trivial in comparison. For example Poland's was about 1/35th of ours at the time. Denmark's was less than 1/100th's ours.

Also, I'm not sure that the US military really wanted much more of a committment from other countries. A comparable number of soldiers from most of the other countries wouldn't added much to the force but would have greatly complicated matters of command and control. And perhaps other countries just didn't want their forces under our command. I suppose you think that in any military action that Obama gets us involved in he will insist that all the other nations of the world contribute a proportional number of troops to the effort and get a say in how it is done? :rolleyes:

And what about in the years after the invasion? Over 30 countries have now contributed troops to the effort. In July of 2004, of the 133,000 foreign troops in Iraq, about 112,000 were American. Thus about 1/5th to 1/6th of the total were from other nations. Given the relative size of our military, military budget and population, this does not seem like a trivial contribution. It seems rather proportional. And in 2007 there were still over 7000 UK soldiers in Iraq. And 2300 South Koreans. Little Denmark still had nearly 500. Georgia had deployed about 2000. Australia and Poland still had about 900 each. I think your characterization of the contribution by other countries is just as flawed as your claim that the vast number of countries opposed the invasion. Meanwhile, members of your coalition have be defecting and wanting to join the effort in Iraq. ;)

Although opposition was not politically fatal to France and Germany (probably quite popular at home), it did strain their relations to the US.

Did you hear that the French want to open an embassy in Iraq? Might that be a sign that we are winning, contrary to what Obama and the other top democrats claim? :D

Oh, I forgot. France and Germany opposed the invasion not because they thought it was a bad idea, but because they had sweetheart deals with Saddam.

Actually, they did have sweetheart deals lined up with Saddam ... IF we didn't invade. Iraq's Oil Ministry had planned to develop 350 wells across the country under contracts with several Russian and French oil firms once sanctions ended.

France was Iraq's most favored trading partner and the source of over 22 percent of Iraqi imports. The French company Total Fina Elf had oil contracts worth many, many billions of dollars lined up with Iraq, but because of U.N. resolutions, those contracts could not be signed until sanctions were lifted. There were similar deals lined up for military parts and other technology. France was already at the time the largest supplier of military technology to Iraq. They were still busy arming Saddam (with illegal sales of military and dual-use parts) even in late 2002 and early 2003 when efforts were being made to get inspectors back into Iraq and we were preparing an invasion force. Perhaps the French didn't want us going in because we might discover this as well as the bribes (in the form of oil allocations) that French officials took from Saddam to look the other way.

The French were also acting as a conduit for military related materials purchased from other countries that happened to be against the invasion. HTPB, used in the solid propellant of rockets, was a prohibited item. Yet a shipment of 20 tons of the stuff left China in August 2002, a deal brokered by CIS Paris. It arrived in Syria (another country that was against the invasion) and then was trucked across Syria to Iraq. And French intelligence was aware of this sale as it required a French export license. And there are numerous similar examples involving France as the producer or conduit of materials sold to Iraq that were banned by the sanctions that France had agreed to uphold. Sorry, but France had good reasons to keep us out and keep Saddam in place. And if you can't see that you are naive.

Germany was also on the receiving end of Saddam's largess. Trade was over a billion dollars a year and Saddam had ordered Iraqi domestic businesses to show preference to German companies for their stance in objecting to military attack on Iraq. Germany was also a major supplier of military equipment and proscribed technology. So they too had reason to keep us out.

Russia got almost 6 percent of Iraq's annual imports. Russia's Lukoil negotiated a 4 billion dollar, 23 year contract in 1997. Work on the contract was expected to commence upon cancellation of the UN sanctions. Russian companies were signing contracts for future work right and left. And from 1981 to 2001, Russia supplied Iraq with 50 percent of its arms. And there is considerable intelligence to suggest Russia significantly aided Iraq's post 1991 WMD efforts. There are even reports they helped move WMD out of Iraq just before our invasion. And the biggest part of the oil allocations (bribes) went to 46 individuals and organizations in Russia. No wonder Russia wanted Saddam to stay in place and be given a clean bill of health so sanctions could be removed. Don't be naive about their motivations.

And finally, China was responsible for almost 6 percent of Iraq's imports. They too had negotiated long term oil exploration deals ... deals put on hold by the sanctions. And from 1981 to 2001, they were the second largest supplier of arms to Iraq. They clearly had a vested interest (in addition to wanting to see the US stymied) for wanting Saddam to remain in place and sanctions lifted. Surely you aren't naive enough to think otherwise.

[gdnp]

My analogy to the Iraq invasion:

George lives down the road from a compound controlled by a cult leader named Saddam that he doesn't like. The guy has done some bad things, abuses his cult members, has been caught with some illegal weapons, maybe dealt drugs. Once, he tried to arrange a hit on George's dad. He's currently on probation.

George decides this guy is a threat to the neighborhood, and takes his concerns to the authorities. They investigate, and find some suspicious behavior but no smoking gun. George finds some ex-cult members who make all sorts of claims about the bad conduct that goes on inside the cult, but they can't come up with any hard evidence. Just unsubstantiated claims. Skeptics wonder whether the charges are reliable, but George claims that this is proof that Saddam is a danger and has to go.

George goes back to the authorities who seat a grand jury who issues subpoenas, but the police find no hard evidence.

George goes to the neighbors and tries to rally support. He's kind of a big-shot in town and likes to throw his weight around. No one wants to cross him. The neighbors don't like Saddam much, but he also isn't really bothering them, and they would prefer to stay out of it. Let the police handle it.

George ratchets up the rhetoric. There are guns. There are drugs. Organized crime connections--including connections to a rival gang that has sworn Saddam's destruction. Saddam is an imminent danger and must be dealt with. The cult members are all terrified and will be thrilled to be out from under Saddam's control.

George organizes a mob, made up mostly of his own private security forces, but also with a few friends who agree to help out as long as George's boys do most of the dirty work. Most of the neighbors stand on the sidelines.

George demands that Saddam cooperate with the grand jury. The head of the grand jury says that although compliance is not perfect that his investigation is ongoing and has turned up nothing. He wants more time.

George gives Saddam an ultimatum. Out of town by sundown tomorrow, or else! That night, his men attack the compound. Some of Saddam's men are killed, along with a fair number of women and children. Saddam hides out but is eventually caught, with his top advisers captured or killed. The police stay on the sidelines. Most of the mob goes home, leaving George and his men in charge. There is a show trial, and Saddam is hanged.

The compound is examined, and no drugs or illegal weapons are found. A few contacts with other gangs are discovered, but no real cooperation. George claims that just because they didn't currently have drugs or guns doesn't mean that they weren't going to reconstitute his drug operation in the future, and thus his vigilante mob was still justified.

The people in the cult seem mostly happy to be rid of Saddam, but the power vacuum leads to the cult breaking into factions and more death. George's men, originally seen as liberators, become targets for both sides. There are not enough to keep order, and the portions of the compound not destroyed in the initial battle are looted.

Cult members are interviewed, and most claim that the drugs and guns were disposed of and the records destroyed. There are rumors that they were hidden, perhaps next door at a compound run by another cult, but no one can produce any hard evidence.

Meanwhile, the internal struggles continue, only calming down after each of the factions is driven into its own armed section of the compound. People only enter the rival sections under great peril. George claims this reduced violence shows that his raid was justified.

[BeAChooser]

Nope. I never claimed to be certain that Iraq did not have WMDs. Please supply a quote of mine if you think I did.

Well good for you. But don't try and deny that many ... in fact, I think the majority of those most vocal about the war on your side of the issue ... have made that claim with 100 percent certainty. So tell me, are they lying since I think I've demonstrated there is plenty of room for doubt according to the ISG itself.

And I'm curious. You support Obama. In October 2002, Obama (speaking of Saddam and Iraq) stated that “He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy.” Yet, even though he apparently thought at the time that Iraq had WMD, he didn't support going to war against Saddam. "Does America want a leader that is okay with rogue states possessing weapons of mass destruction?" That's not me asking ... that's a quote from Mother Jones at the time. :)

I did think, however, that even if there were WMDs that the probability of their using them did not constitute a present danger of sufficient severity to justify a war.

But the concern wasn't that Iraq would use them but that they would fall into the hands of terrorists who probably would use them. That either Iraq would give them to terrorists or terrorists would be able to acquire them because of the lack of control Saddam's regime appeared to have over its WMD programs. I think you've never really grasped the reasons we went into Iraq.

I thought with the intense scrutiny that was on Saddam he was effectively neutralized.

Yet during a time when Saddam was under even greater scrutiny (back in the mid 90's when there were thousands of inspectors in Iraq and Saddam's regime had no say as to where they went) we have tapes (discovered after the invasion) where Saddam and his minions are heard LAUGHING about their ability to hide the scope of their WMD programs and stockpiles from UN inspectors. :rolleyes:

If there were ongoing WMD programs at the time of the invasion, thousands of people would have been involved.

You've again missed the obvious. Perhaps Saddam just shut the programs down because it looked like we might actually invade. Perhaps he shipped materials out of the country hoping that once the inspectors were gone they could return. And thousands of people WERE involved in WMD related work according to the ISG.

Would not someone come forward by now?

For what purpose? To be put on a death list by Saddam's followers? To have their families threatened or murdered? To be possibly tried for war crimes by the Coalition? Years after the invasion, the ISG said that individuals they wanted to interview were still being threatened with assassination. These people lived in abject fear for much of their lives under Saddam. Just because we arrived on the scene doesn't mean they would all of the sudden feel safe enough to point fingers. Especially when we clearly couldn't project them at the time. We can't even protect them now with any surety.

Your claim that the weapons are in Syria and Lebanon are, basically, woo.

The possibility is a statement made by the ISG. They said they have what they believe is a credible source indicating that WMD related materials went to Syria. They said they can't be sure that it didn't happen. That's not woo. That's a fact that you seem unable to counter.

Furthermore, a still viable binary sarin warhead, that Iraq denied having, turned up as an IED. Your side can't explain how it just happened to turn up when there where literally millions of shells that might have turned up instead. It's highly improbable that it was the only one that Iraq had.

You can't tell us the contents of the trucks and aircraft that went to Syria shortly before the war. There are named sources (some high level Iraqis) saying they contained WMD. You can't tell us what was sanitized from files, computer and facilities that the ISG was confident had to do with Iraq's WMD programs.

How about this: From http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/


‘I found Saddam’s WMD bunkers’

Spectator, 20 April 2007

... snip ...

Having served for 12 years as an agent in the US Air Force’s Office of Special Investigations Mr Gaubatz, a trained Arabic-speaker, was hand-picked for postings in 2003, first in Saudi Arabia and then in Nasariyah in Iraq. His mission was to locate suspect WMD sites, discover threats against US forces in the area and find Saddam loyalists, and then send such intelligence to the Iraq Survey Group and other agencies.

Between March and July 2003, he says, he was taken to four sites in southern Iraq— two within Nasariyah, one 20 miles south and one near Basra — which, he was told by numerous Iraqi sources, contained biological and chemical weapons, material for a nuclear programme and UN-proscribed missiles.

... snip ...

Mr Gaubatz verbally told the ISG of his findings, and asked them to come with heavy equipment to breach the concrete of the bunkers and uncover their sealed contents. But to his consternation, the ISG told him they didn’t have the manpower or equipment to do it and that it would be ‘unsafe’ to try.

‘The problem was that the ISG were concentrating their efforts in looking for WMD in northern Iraq and this was in the south’, says Mr Gaubatz. ‘They were just swept up by reports of WMD in so many different locations. But we told them if they didn’t excavate these sites, others would’.

That, he says, is precisely what happened. He subsequently learned from Iraqi, CIA and British intelligence that the WMD buried in the four sites were excavated by Iraqis and Syrians, with help from the Russians, and moved to Syria.

... snip ...

When Mr Gaubatz returned to the US, he tried to bring all this to light. Two congressmen, Peter Hoekstra, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and Curt Weldon, were keen to follow up his account. To his horror, however, when they tried to access his classified intelligence reports they were told that all 60 of them —which, in the routine way, he had sent in 2003 to the computer clearing-house at a US air base in Saudi Arabia —had mysteriously gone missing. These written reports had never even been seen by the ISG.

... snip ...

In 2005, the CIA held a belated inquiry into the disappearance of this intelligence. Only then did its agents visit the sites — to report that they had indeed been looted.


Here's another of the many sources I can quote:

http://www.therant.us/daily_columns/in_serach_of_saddam_husseins_wmd.htm

If you democrats demand absolute certainly and complete support from the world community before acting, you will never act. And the consequences of that in today's world are grave indeed.

The people spouting woo are the ones who now claim Saddam was reformed and not the man in this mural:

http://www.nationalreview.com/images/mural3.jpg

[BeAChooser]

I see that you have joined the Truthers, the creationists, and the folks at RaptureReady in consoling yourself by daydreaming about how one day you'll be proved right.

I see that you are completely withdrawing from the debate. :D

[varwoche]

Mr Gaubatz I recognize that name. He was the conspiracy theorist who participated in the FrontPageMag "symposium" <guffaw> on WMD that Pomeroo trotted out in a thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100497) some time back.

[BeAChooser]

The biggest risk in leaving Iraq, now, is that the civil war gets nastier and spreads throughout the country, blood letting galore.

The biggest risk to us is that withdrawal will be pointed to as a victory for al-Qaeda and Iran, thus paving the way for a resurgence of al-Qaeda and an emboldening of Iran. Also, Iraq still serves as a major magnet for al-Qaeda and now it appears Iranian backed terrorist groups. In that context, it is a killing ground for eliminating these terrorist threats that might actually do us more damage if employed elsewhere and be harder to counter if employed elsewhere. Finally, there is an opportunity cost to abandoning Iraq. Abandoning Iraq would make it much harder for US forces to conduct operations throughout the Middle East and there is no sign that we will have less need for such capabilities in the future. And perhaps most important of all, a civil war breaking out and spreading throughout the country also eliminates the growing (as evidenced by the sources I cited) possibility that Iraq will end up peaceful, anti-terrorist, prosperous, somewhat US friendly and a beacon of what the arab world could accomplish if it would only abandon its irrational hatred of Israel and the West and instead focus on it's own economic and political development. Abandoning Iraq will set back the cause of peace in the Middle East for decades and perhaps lead to an arm's race (perhaps a nuclear one) as Iran, Saudi Arabia and the other regional powers vie to fill the void.

Will the modest amount of Iraqi oil hitting the international market increase or decrease in the case of a wider internal war in Iraq? I think it would decrease.

Agreed. Increased turmoil in Iraq would be a further shock to the oil markets. And keep in mind that Iraq potentially has the largest oil reserves on earth and those might remain locked up for a long time if Iraq is destabilized by withdrawal. They are also now looking at the possibility of bringing Iraqi oil to market via pipeline to the Med, eliminating the threat of interdiction by Iran.

The only major political upside is lowered cost and fewer dead Marines and Soldiers

There is no guarantee of this. If we don't fight al-qaeda in Iraq we will have to fight them somewhere else. And that somewhere else may be less conductive to security/effectiveness of our forces. We are now winning in Iraq because we've learned some very valuable lessons. If al-Qaeda goes elsewhere, we may have to go through another learning curve and perhaps the difficulties of working in that environment may be even costlier, longterm.

In the long term, American ability to act as enforcer/honest broker regionally would be uncertain. (If you bailed on them, will you bail on me?) That probably means more, not less, instability in the region.

A very good point. One that might lead Saudi Arabia to arm and go nuclear. And we should keep in mind that bin Ladin was emboldened because he perceived the US as a paper tiger due to our withdrawal from Vietnam. Perhaps by abandoning Iraq we'd only be sowing the seeds for the next generation of terrorists.

[BeAChooser]

It should be noted that BeAChooser's quotes from Al Gore, September 2002, are from a speech in which he adamantly came out AGAINST the impending invasion of Iraq.

The speech you are referring to is this: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-020923-gore01.htm . And you are being dishonest.

Gore didn't argue against an invasion under any circumstances. He was arguing against toppling Saddam and leaving nothing in its place. Right before he makes the statement about secret supplies of WMD he states "if we quickly succeed in a war against the weakened and depleted fourth rate military of Iraq and then quickly abandon that nation as President Bush has abandoned Afghanistan after quickly defeating a fifth rate military there, the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam." Ironic that the Obama side of this debate has been wanting to quickly abandon Iraq consistently ever since we invaded. And now you want to make him President? :)

Gore said that "Congress should also urge the President to make every effort to obtain a fresh demand from the Security Council for prompt, unconditional compliance by Iraq within a definite period of time. If the Council will not provide such language, then other choices remain open, but in any event the President should be urged to take the time to assemble the broadest possible international support for his course of action."

And the truth is that Bush did just what Al Gore requested. He got UN resolution 1441 passed by the UN demanding unconditional compliance in a definite time period. And he waited to assemble the broadest possible international support before punishing Iraq for not complying with that demand. And he even consulted the Congress and got approval for the use of armed force. And now democrats want to complain when Bush did just what Gore recommended? Is that because they feel there is "no controlling authority"? You, of course, know what I'm referring to, don't you? :D

[BeAChooser]

My analogy to the Iraq invasion

So now you are down to posting false analogies as your argument?

Why not just tell us why Obama wants to withdraw when most of the signs are now pointing to victory by our side if we stay the course? :D

[BeAChooser]

I recognize that name. He was the conspiracy theorist who participated in the FrontPageMag "symposium" <guffaw> on WMD that Pomeroo trotted out in a thread some time back

http://www.davegordonwrites.com/articles.php?id=364


Saddam's Nukes Could be in Syria

Dave Gordon - Sunday, 6 January, 2008

... snip ...

But now, recently released intelligence documents and other previously classified information suggest that not only did Saddam Hussein possess an arsenal of operational weapons of mass destruction (WMD) at the time of the invasion in March 2003, but that those weapons continue to pose a regional threat in their new home: Syria.

Of the tens of tons of secret Iraqi documents that were captured and are now stored under heavy guard, only a small fraction have been translated and reviewed. But as information trickles out from this vast data store, it is appearing more and more likely that the invasion of Iraq prevented Saddam from continuing an ongoing trade in chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons.

... snip ...

Among the newly disclosed files are tape recordings of Saddam at secret meetings with the covert department that was handling Iraq's WMD program. The National Security Agency has confirmed this, and the results were aired with little fanfare on a special edition of ABC Frontline in February 2006. Records show that Saddam played a well documented cat-and-mouse game with UN weapons inspectors. Saddam's intelligence service sent out a memo ordering his staff not to destroy any WMD, but to conceal prohibited materials. Between 1999 and 2001, according to an official memo marked "top secret," the Iraqi army had a "chemical platoon" that was undergoing training in every form of illegal chemical weapons. While denying the existence of banned weapons in Iraq before the UN Security Council, Saddam was trying to expand his chemical weapons capability, and between January and September 2002, his Military Industrial Commission approved the production of various nerve gases. In October 2002, Saddam's Director of Planning ordered more than forty tons of various chemicals which, when mixed together, would make Zyklon B – the poison gas used by the Nazis to kill millions of Jews during the Holocaust.

The recordings reveal that Saddam was also briefed on Iraq's secret nuclear weapons project, in a taped meeting about a year before Coalition forces entered Iraq. The tape describes a sophisticated laser enrichment process for uranium that had never been known by the UN inspectors to even exist in Iraq, and Saddam's advisors on the tape were Iraqi scientists who had never been on any weapons inspector's list.

... snip ...

But the most convincing evidence that Iraq's nuclear programs were not designed for peaceful purposes are the treasure-trove of documents from Saddam's files which were originally posted on a public website for translators to pick at. As the translations trickled in, each document was revealed to describe how to make a nuclear bomb in more detail than the last. These documents, dated just before the war, show that Saddam had accumulated just about every secret there was for the construction of nuclear weapons. The Iraqi Intelligence files contain so much accurate information on building a nuclear bomb that the translators' public website had to be closed for reasons of national security.

... snip ...

Loftus says evidence now suggests one quarter of Iraq's WMD had already been destroyed under United Nations pressure during the early to mid-1990s. Loftus believes that Saddam was all-too-willing to publicly destroy aged and corroding chemical weapons that didn't work in the first place to demonstrate that he was in cooperation with UN resolutions.

... snip ...

Another quarter was sold to Iraq's Arab neighbors during the same period. Yossef Bodansky, a senior consultant of the US Departments of Defense and State, and former director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, notes that in 2002 chemical weapons from Iraq were shipped to Iran.

... snip ...

The Last Quarter of WMD

David Gaubatz, from the US Air Force Office of Special Investigation was assigned to support the CIA's Iraq Survey Group in the hunt for Saddam's WMD, and was one of the first weapons hunters to arrive in Iraq in April 2003. Gaubatz made connections with the Iraqi police, who showed him how in the last six months of 2002, Saddam built four huge cofferdams along the Euphrates River. Deep pits were excavated and huge underground bombproof warehouses were installed with five foot thick concrete ceilings.

Underwater facilities are extremely expensive to construct and are usually built for only one purpose. The twenty-five feet of water overhead would conceal almost all of the radiation emissions from inside an underground warehouse where nuclear materials were stored. While the medical files for Gaubatz and his team confirm they were exposed to radiation after investigating the area, they were unable to enter any of the underground sites to explore the source of the radiation as the tunnels leading to the surface had been plugged with concrete and filled with water. The team assumed that the warehouses had thus been abandoned and didn't contain any useful materials. Gaubatz, twice decorated by the Air Force Office of Special Investigations for his work in Iraq, returned to the United States in 2004 without ever having gained access to the warehouses.

However, recently discovered among Saddam's intelligence files is the actual order to transfer the remaining sensitive military materials, whether completed or not, to the "underground facilities." The movement order came just before the invasion of Iraq. By the time Gaubatz discovered this evidence that the warehouses were the most likely location where banned weapons would be hidden, the CIA reported back that all four of the warehouses had been looted.

The Syrian Connection

Loftus argues this nuclear inventory was spirited out of Iraq right under the nose of the US occupation – and intelligence experts have discovered a WMD trail leading to Syria. Intelligence analysts worry that Syria has been developing its own nuclear program and may have been planning to transfer technology and materials to its terrorist proxies for a radioactive "dirty bomb" to be used against Israel.

Loftus suggests the recent mysterious air strike by Israel against Syria was intended to destroy the facility carrying out this nuclear work.

Via his contacts through the Syrian intelligence network – including truck drivers who drove the WMD to the site the Israelis raided – and satellite photos, Loftus contends that he can pinpoint the precise locations of some outstanding Iraqi nuclear materials.

John Shaw, a high level official with the US Department of Defense, tracked the mass of conventional weapons and prohibited technology that was found in Iraq. He had been studying the inflow of conventional weapons into Iraq in 2002, when he came across the simultaneous outflow of WMD from Iraq to Syria.

Shaw was able to develop a relationship with the British Secret Intelligence Service and senior members of the Ukrainian intelligence service. The Ukrainians, part of the Coalition in Iraq, gained access to the records of the Russian Spetznatz units that had secretly been ordered to Iraq at the end of 2002. This elite unit of the Russian Special Forces includes a group specially trained to remove all evidence of Russian arms transfers from client states.

According to Iraqi intelligence files, in January 2003, the Chinese Prime Minister told German Chancellor Schroeder that Chinese Intelligence, "says that Iraq has moved weapons of mass destruction to Syria."

Shaw explained in a recent intelligence summit how three Western spy services discovered that Russian soldiers had been dispatched to Iraq. They were not bringing any new weapons in – the Spetznatz were smuggling Saddam's stash of weapons out. Shaw has collected all the details of the plan, the identity of the units and their commanders, and the dates of their entry and exit of Iraq.

Meanwhile, US spy satellites picked up the shipping convoys and one of the truckers subsequently became an informant on the project.

The Syrians dug ditches sixty feet deep in the area of Deir al Zour, Syria, and were observed dumping the contents of the trucks into them in the stealth of the night. The Syrians were then seen filling in the ditches and replanting crops over them before dawn. Deir al Zour made news again recently as the site bombed by a secret Israeli air strike. The bombing, which was swept under the rug by Israel, the US, Syria and the rest of the world, was speculated to have been aimed at thwarting construction of a Syrian nuclear facility.

Israeli intelligence claim that the nuclear processing building had to be constructed close to Saddam's WMD storage area because the Syrians planned to take Saddam's highly enriched uranium out of the storage site and irradiate it with North Korean plutonium. The result would be a factory that produces enough toxic fuel for thousands of extremely poisonous "dirty bombs" which could be launched at Israel by terrorist proxies. Had the irradiation plant been completed, Deir al Zour might have become a name as infamous as Auschwitz.

But in spite of the successful Israeli raid, and the newly discovered intelligence, many believe the war against Saddam's WMD is far from over. Some tens of thousands of advanced centrifuges were manufactured in Malaysia for Libya's Colonel Qaddafi and Saddam Hussein. Quaddafi's centrifuges have been accounted for; but Saddam's centrifuges are still missing. When Colonel Qaddafi turned over his atom bomb blueprints, they were written in Chinese. In a fascinating twist, now the Chinese are helping other terrorist clients. They have just announced that they will build the largest nuclear refinery in the Middle East -- including dozens of buildings and hundreds of staff -- located in Deir al Zour, Syria.

Recently, US satellites have detected that Syria is now operating high-speed centrifuges typically used to enrich uranium ore into weapons grade fuel for a nuclear bomb.

Perhaps the most revealing discovery to come from the newly translated Iraqi intelligence reports was that neither diplomacy, nor sanctions – and not even the threat of utter annihilation – convinced Saddam to peacefully part with his WMD program. We can only hope that his counterparts in the Middle East will learn from his fate.


Because the democrats certainly haven't. Go ahead and stick your head back in your shell, varwoche. :)

[varwoche]

http://www.davegordonwrites.com/articles.php?id=364
You are citing an agenda-driven blogger who is opining about a conspiracy theorist who claims to know where the WMDs were but the US military / Bush admin just won't listen, and have even tried to silence him.

Thank you for this outstanding, succinct example of the sort of rubbish you cite wholesale.

Too bad davegaubatz.com croaked -- it had some some real gems. If I have time I'll see what I can find with the wayback machine.

[BeAChooser]

You are citing an agenda-driven blogger

Can you dispute ANY of the things he actually claims as facts? I'm not talking about the speculations in the article ... I'm talking about the specific claims regarding documents that prove such and such, Gaubatz credentials, quotes by people like Loftus (you do know who he is, don't you?), and other claimed facts in the article. If you can't, then I'd say they make a pretty good case that you have your head in your shell because you can't face those facts. Just like you've demonstrated with regard to many other facts I've cited in this thread regarding Iraq, WMD and what the ISG found. You ignore them because that's all you can do. :D

[BeAChooser]

I know the Obama supporters don't want to hear this ...


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121305438938259017.html?mod=opinion_main_comment aries "How Prime Minister Maliki Pacified Iraq, By KIMBERLY KAGAN and FREDERICK W. KAGAN, June 10, 2008 ... snip ... where the U.S. was unequivocally losing in Iraq at the end of 2006, we are just as unequivocally winning today. By February 2008, America and its partners accomplished a series of tasks thought to be impossible. The Sunni Arab insurgency and al Qaeda in Iraq were defeated in Anbar, Diyala and Baghdad provinces, and the remaining leaders and fighters clung to their last urban outpost in Mosul. The Iraqi government passed all but one of the "benchmark" laws (the hydrocarbon law being the exception, but its purpose is now largely accomplished through the budget) and was integrating grass-roots reconciliation with central political progress. The sectarian civil war had ended." ... snip ... On May 20, the ISF, supported by U.S. airpower and advisers, moved rapidly into the remainder of Sadr City. They received help from the local population in identifying IED locations and enemy safe houses, and destroyed enemy leadership centers. By the end of May, most of the Special Groups and hard-core Sadrist fighters had been killed, captured or driven off. At present, al Qaeda is left with a tenuous foothold in Ninewah and a scattered presence throughout the rest of Sunni Iraq. Special Groups leaders who survived have mostly fled to Iran, while hard-core Sadrist fighters have fallen back to Maysan Province, whose capital, Amarah, has become their last urban sanctuary. All of Iraq's other major population centers are controlled by the ISF, which can now move freely throughout the country as never before. The war is not over. ... snip ... But success is in sight. Compared with the seemingly insurmountable obstacles already overcome, the remaining challenges in Iraq are eminently solvable – if we continue to pursue a determined strategy that builds on success rather than throwing our accomplishments away. "

[boloboffin]

The speech you are referring to is this: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-020923-gore01.htm . And you are being dishonest.

That statement about me is a lie. Lie about me again and I'll report you for violation of your Membership Agreement.

Gore didn't argue against an invasion under any circumstances. He was arguing against toppling Saddam and leaving nothing in its place.

Which is what Bush did.

Right before he makes the statement about secret supplies of WMD he states "if we quickly succeed in a war against the weakened and depleted fourth rate military of Iraq and then quickly abandon that nation as President Bush has abandoned Afghanistan after quickly defeating a fifth rate military there, the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam."

And that's what we got.

Ironic that the Obama side of this debate has been wanting to quickly abandon Iraq consistently ever since we invaded. And now you want to make him President? :)

Yes. Throwing good money after bad is perhaps your idea of fiscal responsibility, but it is not mine. I'm saving a place for you at my poker table, though.

Gore said that "Congress should also urge the President to make every effort to obtain a fresh demand from the Security Council for prompt, unconditional compliance by Iraq within a definite period of time. If the Council will not provide such language, then other choices remain open, but in any event the President should be urged to take the time to assemble the broadest possible international support for his course of action."

And the truth is that Bush did just what Al Gore requested. He got UN resolution 1441 passed by the UN demanding unconditional compliance in a definite time period.

Which Iraq complied with, and Bush invaded anyway.

And he waited to assemble the broadest possible international support before punishing Iraq for not complying with that demand.

Iraq DID comply with the demands of 1441, and therefore your statement is a lie.

And he even consulted the Congress and got approval for the use of armed force.

Under the same conditions Gore was chastising him for in the September speech.

And now democrats want to complain when Bush did just what Gore recommended? Is that because they feel there is "no controlling authority"? You, of course, know what I'm referring to, don't you? :D

The :rule10 he did. Such unmitigated gall to state that Bush did "just what Gore recommended" show the most astounding ability to prevaricate I've yet seen, and I regularly debate 9/11 conspiracy advocates. WOW.

And, yeah (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20001016/weinberg).

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
The speech you are referring to is this: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li...923-gore01.htm . And you are being dishonest.

That statement about me is a lie. Lie about me again and I'll report you for violation of your Membership Agreement.

You stated "quotes from Al Gore, September 2002, are from a speech in which he adamantly came out AGAINST the impending invasion of Iraq." But Al Gore does NOT rule out an invasion under any circumstances in that speech. He only warns that an invasion that is followed by a withdrawal like that in 1991 that leaves Iraq in chaos would be disastrous. He goes on to recommend that Bush get a UN resolution and international support before proceeding and not act unilaterally.

It is interesting to note that Gore states that "We are perfectly capable of staying the course in our war against Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist network, while simultaneously taking those steps necessary to build an international coalition to join us in taking on Saddam Hussein in a timely fashion." He's not saying we shouldn't take on Saddam. Just do it in a timely fashion with international cooperation.

He furthermore stated that "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." In other words, he agreed with Bush that we will have to topple Saddam to end the threat posed by him. He was warning that inspections would not do the job ... which turned out to be the case.

He went on: "Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival." In other words, he was agreeing with Bush that US interests must supercede the contraints posed by organizations like the UN which have other interests than ours.

Now while he next said that "I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq," he went on to say "Indeed, should we decide to proceed, that action can be justified within the framework of international law rather than outside it. In fact, though a new UN resolution may be helpful in building international consensus, the existing resolutions from 1991 are sufficient from a legal standpoint." In other words, he stated, just as the Bush administration later did, that while it would be nice to get international consensus, existing UN resolutions gave us the legal authority to invade and topple Saddam if we judge it necessary."

I don't read that as being unequivocally against invasion. Just invasion under the circumstance then extant. Especially since his recommendations before acting further vis a vis Iraq were that the President obtain a new UN resolution, allow inspectors time to work under a specific deadline and build a coalition of forces for the invasion, ... all of which Bush eventually did.

And you failed to mention any of that to your readers or supply them with a link by which they could have learned that. But I guess you were accidently mischaracterizing Gore's views.


Quote:
Gore didn't argue against an invasion under any circumstances. He was arguing against toppling Saddam and leaving nothing in its place.

Which is what Bush did.

Go ahead and report me because your statement is false. After the invasion, the US worked tirelessly and at great cost to help Iraq form a new government based on more democratic principles. We did not leave with nothing in place. And it now looks like that effort will be a success ... provided we stay the course and not abandon the effort as Obama advocates.


Quote:
Right before he makes the statement about secret supplies of WMD he states "if we quickly succeed in a war against the weakened and depleted fourth rate military of Iraq and then quickly abandon that nation as President Bush has abandoned Afghanistan after quickly defeating a fifth rate military there, the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam."

And that's what we got.

And you are again misrepresenting the current situation. David Kay, the top ISG inspector concluded that Iraq was more dangerous than anyone suspected before the invasion as a possible source of WMD for terrorists. And we are learning more details daily that suggest Saddam's regime was more supportive of terrorists and terrorism than was suspected at the time.

Quote:
Ironic that the Obama side of this debate has been wanting to quickly abandon Iraq consistently ever since we invaded. And now you want to make him President?

Yes. Throwing good money after bad is perhaps your idea of fiscal responsibility, but it is not mine. I'm saving a place for you at my poker table, though.

ROTFLOL! You and Obama would have folded long ago. I'll be happy to play poker with you. :)


Quote:
And the truth is that Bush did just what Al Gore requested. He got UN resolution 1441 passed by the UN demanding unconditional compliance in a definite time period.

Which Iraq complied with, and Bush invaded anyway.

Another false statement. Iraq did not comply with UN1441. And certainly not by the time limits that were established. And I've amply proven that in this thread.

In early November of 2002 the UN security council passed resolution 1441 giving Iraq a “final opportunity” to comply with its disarmament requirements under previous Security Council resolutions and warning that if it didn't comply it would face severe consequences.

On December 7, Iraq submitted its declaration "of all aspects of its [weapons of mass destruction] programmes" as required by Resolution 1441. The declaration was supposed to provide information about any prohibited weapons activity since UN inspectors left the country in 1998 and resolve outstanding questions about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs that had not been answered by 1998. UN inspectors judged that it did not. UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors told the UN Security Council on December 19 that the declaration contained little new information.

On January 27, 2003 Inspector Blix told the UN Security Council that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."

In mid-February the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles remained unresolved. On February 24th, France and Russia admitted that while Baghdad's cooperation was improving, it was not "yet fully satisfactory."

Blix's March 7 report stated "Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections." UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors stated that Iraq was gradually increasing its cooperation with the United Nations but both deemed the cooperation insufficient. Blix issued a report specifying a number of questions that remained unsolved including that Iraq had not accounted for up to 10,000 liters of anthrax, Scud missile warheads, and drone aircraft that could fly past UN-allowed limits. Even as of March 17th, Saddam's regime was still putting up obstacles ... preventing interviews, hampering inspections, not coming forth with data the ISG later learned they had all the time.

After the invasion it was discovered by the ISG that Iraq systematically was sanitizing files, computers and facilities related to WMD before, during and even after the invasion. That's not the behavior of a regime cooperating ... of one coming clean ... as was demanded by UN 1441.

Unable to resolve its differences with Security Council members who favored merely strengthening and continuing weapons inspections, the United States abandoned the inspections process and initiated the invasion of Iraq on March 19 with a coalition of countries that was larger than that which tossed Iraq out of Kuwait in 1991.


Iraq DID comply with the demands of 1441, and therefore your statement is a lie.

Given all the above facts, shall I report you for a violation of your Membership Agreement? :D

Such unmitigated gall to state that Bush did "just what Gore recommended" show the most astounding ability to prevaricate I've yet seen, and I regularly debate 9/11 conspiracy advocates. WOW.

Bush did do just what Gore stated should be done. He got a UN resolution (1441) through the Security Council giving Iraq one final opportunity to comply within a specific deadline. And he built an coalition of countries to provide the severe consequences when Iraq failed to comply in that deadline but instead decided to play more of the same games with inspectors that they'd played for over a decade. To claim anything else is to promote woo.

[varwoche]

Loftus (you do know who he is, don't you?) Yes I do. He's nuttier than an almond orchard (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3235664#post3235664). And somehow it comes as no surprise that you cite him.

[BeAChooser]

And somehow it comes as no surprise that you cite him.

I know facts are troubling to your side of this debate. This article is full of them and here's just part of it's contents:

http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=F715A709-2614-4EA5-967C-F6151F94A364

Shattering Conventional Wisdom About Saddam's WMD's
By John Loftus
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, November 16, 2007

... snip ...

Without pointing fingers at the Americans, the Israeli government now believes that Saddam Hussein’s nuclear stockpiles have ended up in weapons dumps in Syria.

... snip ...

Senior sources in the Israeli government have privately confirmed to me that the recent New York Times articles and satellite photographs about the Israeli raid on an alleged Syrian nuclear target in Al Tabitha, Syria were of the completely wrong location. Armed with this knowledge, I searched Google Earth satellite photos for the rest of the province of Deir al Zour for a site that would match the unofficial Israeli descriptions: camouflaged black factory building, next to a military ammunition dump, between an airport and an orchard. There is a clear match in only one location, Longitude 35 degrees, 16 minutes 49.31 seconds North, Latitude 40 degrees, 3 minutes, 29.97 seconds East. Analysts and members of the public are invited to determine for themselves whether this was indeed the weapons dump for Saddam’s WMD.

Photos of this complex taken after the Israel raid appear to show that all of the buildings, earthern blast berms, bunkers, roads, even the acres of blackened topsoil, have all been dug up and removed. All that remains are what appear to be smoothed over bomb craters. Of course, that is not of itself definitive proof, but it is extremely suspicious.

It should be noted that the American interrogators had accurate information about a possible Deir al Zour location shortly after the war, but ignored it

... snip ...



And remember all those documents that were captured?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926630/posts?page=51


Shattering Conventional Wisdom About Saddam's WMD's--What top secret Iraqi files disclose.

FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | November 16, 2007 | John Loftus

... snip ...

Saddam Hussein's secret documents are measured by the shelf-mile and stored inside a secure but dusty facility near U.S. Central Command Headquarters in Doha, Qatar, and in several subsidiary sites. Armed guards protect the unread dossiers. Three shifts of two hundred translators each work around the clock. Perhaps 5% of these captured documents have been studied so far, but their contents are about to shatter much of the conventional wisdom concerning Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.

... snip ...

After Saddam's brother-in-law Kemal Hussein defected to Jordan in the mid 1990's and exposed some (but not all) of the numerous Iraqi WMD programs, Saddam started over from scratch on WMD production, using a small and secret cadre of new program leaders. Among the newly-disclosed documents are Saddam's actual tape recordings of the meetings of this special group for WMD.

The National Security Agency has confirmed[6] that the tapes are authentic and that the voiceprints are unquestionably those of Saddam and his elite WMD advisers.

... snip ...

Most of the audio recordings of the secret WMD group are undated, as the CD on which they were found is a compilation of tapes of various WMD meetings stretching over a decade. But their tone is consistent not only with other recorded WMD meetings but with the newly-released document intelligence archives, many of which are revealed here for the first time through the assistance of author and geopolitical analyst Mr. Ryan Mauro.[8] Mauro cautions that "the recently declassified documents have the potential to shatter any conclusions or judgments about what Saddam Hussein's regime was up to. Until all these documents are translated and analyzed, it is premature to reach any conclusion."

Translating shelf miles of documents, however, may take decades. In the meantime, enough of Saddam's secret files have been translated to illustrate one clear trend over time: through the time of Hans Blix and the run-up to the invasion, Saddam had absolutely no intention of destroying his WMD.

In the last year of his regime, Saddam was in fact still trying to expand his chemical weapons capability. In January 2002, his advisors discussed research into a precursor for Sarin nerve gas.[9] In September 2002, for example, only seven months before the war, Saddam's Military Industrial Commission approved the illegal production of the precursor chemicals used to make Tabun nerve gas.[10] Four days later, another office discussed plans to import a banned compound, phosphorus pentasulfate. The UN had required Iraq to prove that it had destroyed all of its stocks of this chemical, which is a precursor for VX nerve gas. Instead, they were importing more of it.[11] In October 2002, Saddam's Director of Planning ordered more than forty tons of various chemicals which, when mixed together, would make Zyclon B – the poison gas used by the Nazis to kill millions of Jews during the Holocaust.[12] Saddam's scientists appear never to have met a poison gas they did not like.

The secret planning for banned chemical weapons in 2002 was no last-minute decision of desperation on the eve of war. Rather, it typified Saddam's long, well-thought-out plan to deceive the UN – an ongoing project that went back more than a decade. For example, Saddam's intelligence service sent out a memo in 1997 ordering his staff not to destroy any WMD but to conceal prohibited materials, "hide equipment and documents....make sure that labs are cleaned of any traces of chemical or biological substances."[13] That was the real Saddam: hide the WMD documents, clean up the tell-tale evidence.

Beginning in 1998, Saddam’s staff went into overdrive to conceal their illegal WMD programs: "The researchers [sic] that cannot be declared and that is related with the previous prohibited programs of WMD and how to make sure that information about these researchers will not leak to the outside world."[14] Files from 1999, marked “Top Secret”, confirm that the Iraqi army had a "chemical platoon" that was undergoing training in every form of illegal chemical weapons.[15] By 2001, the regime ensured that their chemical platoons had mobile shower vehicles for decontamination.[16] Similarly, the production of mobile labs (which the Duelfer report concluded had ended in 1997) were still being manufactured in 2002.[17]

There can be no doubt that instead of destroying his WMD in 1991, Saddam had a clear intent to revive his WMD production, to expand it and to hide it from the UN inspectors as late as 2002. So where did the stockpile of chemical weapons go in 2003?


I have a sneaking suspicion that before the November election some people are going to have a lot of egg on their face ... that the anti-war democrats are being set up for a really big October surprise. ;)

[boloboffin]

Now that I've calmed down a bit, I'll respond. It's been a long while since I've seen such uninterrupted stretches of wankery unblunted by shame or common sense.

You stated "quotes from Al Gore, September 2002, are from a speech in which he adamantly came out AGAINST the impending invasion of Iraq." But Al Gore does NOT rule out an invasion under any circumstances in that speech. He only warns that an invasion that is followed by a withdrawal like that in 1991 that leaves Iraq in chaos would be disastrous. He goes on to recommend that Bush get a UN resolution and international support before proceeding and not act unilaterally.

I leave it to the reader to understand what a definite article is. Al Gore came out ADAMANTLY against THE impending invasion of Iraq.

You do well to notice that Bush went through the motions of following Gore's counsel in the same way Saddam Hussein went through the motions of adhering to 1441. I trust you know what the phrase "seized of the matter" means. You do, don't you?

It is interesting to note that Gore states that "We are perfectly capable of staying the course in our war against Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist network, while simultaneously taking those steps necessary to build an international coalition to join us in taking on Saddam Hussein in a timely fashion." He's not saying we shouldn't take on Saddam. Just do it in a timely fashion with international cooperation.

Yep. Bush invaded in an untimely fashion with far less international cooperation than he actually did gather.

He furthermore stated that "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." In other words, he agreed with Bush that we will have to topple Saddam to end the threat posed by him. He was warning that inspections would not do the job ... which turned out to be the case.

More wankery. The fact the the United States was the last country to expel inspectors from Iraq is something you will never hear the likes of Bill Kristol admit. The inspectors WERE doing the job. Where they could verify, they did. Where they got stonewalled, they announced it. They were dragging Iraq hemming and hawing into compliance. But this is something Bush could not have, so he threw them all out and invaded.

He went on: "Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival." In other words, he was agreeing with Bush that US interests must supercede the contraints posed by organizations like the UN which have other interests than ours.

"when there is a choice to be made between law and survival" -- that's an interesting phrase for you to quote and not comment on. Care to tell us all what actual threat Saddam posed for our very survival? Care to tell us what evidence Bush based any evidence for a belief in such a threat?

Remember the Senate Intelligence committee report that just came out. Serial exaggeration and handwaving of caveats marked the Bush presentation of the evidence, with clear intent of doing so. They could not get the solidity of evidence they needed so they lied about the solidity of evidence. Donald Rumsfeld even told us that they knew where the WMD were. They Knew!

But they didn't. They were lying out they nether regions.

Now while he next said that "I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq,"

Inconvenient statement for your position, no? :D

he went on to say "Indeed, should we decide to proceed, that action can be justified within the framework of international law rather than outside it. In fact, though a new UN resolution may be helpful in building international consensus, the existing resolutions from 1991 are sufficient from a legal standpoint." In other words, he stated, just as the Bush administration later did, that while it would be nice to get international consensus, existing UN resolutions gave us the legal authority to invade and topple Saddam if we judge it necessary."

"We" judged it necessary based on the prevarications and exaggerations of the Bush Administration.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf (PDF)

I don't read that as being unequivocally against invasion. Just invasion under the circumstance then extant.

You lie. Those circumstances were NOT extant, as Gore clearly stated.

Especially since his recommendations before acting further vis a vis Iraq were that the President obtain a new UN resolution, allow inspectors time to work under a specific deadline and build a coalition of forces for the invasion, ... all of which Bush eventually did.

The resolution gave no allowance for invasion. The actual evidence gave no unequivocal basis for invasion. The deadlines were met, the problems were being dealt with, and the "coalition of the willing" ... I just can't believe anyone still makes that statement seriously.

If Bush had been serious about any of these tasks, the invasion of Iraq may have happened later, but it would have been with UN approval and a deep commitment of troops and resources by the coalition. There would also have been a plan in place from the very beginning to win the peace, another one of Gore's points that Bush farted around on.

And you failed to mention any of that to your readers or supply them with a link by which they could have learned that. But I guess you were accidently mischaracterizing Gore's views.

I wasn't aware that I was in a forum where people required spoonfeeding.

Your second statement is a lie. I didn't mischaracterize anything Gore said. You did so, quoting his own words! It's amazing that a speech widely interpreted at the time as a severe rebuke to Bush by Gore was actually an enthusiastic flagwaver for the war Bush was about to fight and did fight after halfheartedly jumping a few hurdles. Your posts are wankery through and through.

Go ahead and report me because your statement is false. After the invasion, the US worked tirelessly and at great cost to help Iraq form a new government based on more democratic principles. We did not leave with nothing in place. And it now looks like that effort will be a success ... provided we stay the course and not abandon the effort as Obama advocates.

Nothing was in place for a great long while. Nothing in place was the plan until they couldn't muster the political will to invade Iran or Syria (a consequence of fouling up the peace in Iraq). The Bush Administration had to be dragged kicking and screaming into that "working tirelessly and at great cost"... hold up. Shipping pallets of cash to Iraq for general distribution to who exactly hasn't been determined was certainly "at great cost." Great cost has been a factor in this war from the very beginning.

But to characterize the general efforts of the United States from the beginning as "working tirelessly... to help Iraq form a new government"? No. Not at all. Not at all. In fact, "working tirelessly to throw the country into decades of chaos requiring our continued presence in Iraq" would be a far more sensible interpretation of the actions of the United States after taking over Baghdad.

And you are again misrepresenting the current situation. David Kay, the top ISG inspector concluded that Iraq was more dangerous than anyone suspected before the invasion as a possible source of WMD for terrorists. And we are learning more details daily that suggest Saddam's regime was more supportive of terrorists and terrorism than was suspected at the time.

Another statement from David Kay:

"Tom, an imminent threat is a political judgment. It’s not a technical judgment. I think Baghdad was actually becoming more dangerous in the last two years than even we realized. Saddam was not controlling the society any longer. In the marketplace of terrorism and of WMD, Iraq well could have been that supplier if the war had not intervened."

Hmm. What was going on in the last two years before the U.S. invasion? What was happening to cause Saddam Hussein to lose control of the society? Could it be, oh, I don't know, maybe we should consider the major cause to possibly be Bush's ill-advised saber-rattling against Iraq?????

Ah, the joys of self-fulfilling prophecies.

As for the second statement, your fevered imaginations don't qualify for evidence outside the rarified atmosphere of the rightwing blogosphere.

ROTFLOL! You and Obama would have folded long ago. I'll be happy to play poker with you. :)

Now I REALLY want to play poker with you. I'll be charitable and donate the proceeds to the ACLU.

Another false statement. Iraq did not comply with UN1441. And certainly not by the time limits that were established. And I've amply proven that in this thread.

Carl Levin, January 9th:

Let us look at the events that led up to the unanimous decision by
the United Nations Security Council on November 8 of last year to set
up an enhanced inspection regime to afford Iraq an opportunity to
comply with its disarmament obligations. Iraq, as we all remember,
invaded Kuwait on August 1, 1990. After numerous demands and
diplomatic, economic, and political action by the international
community, on November 29, 1990, almost 4 months after the attack, the
U.N. authorized member states ``to use all necessary means'' to
liberate Kuwait.

Iraq's defeat at the hands of a United States-led coalition in 1991
was followed by a U.N. Security Council resolution in April 1991 that
established a number of conditions for a cease fire, notably including
a demand for the destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
programs, and Iraq accepted that resolution.

In the intervening years, Iraq repeatedly obstructed and failed to
cooperate with the weapons inspectors of the United Nations and of the
atomic energy agency that were charged with the responsibility of
disarming Iraq.

With this historical background, the Security Council adopted
resolution 1441 on November 8 of last year to set up an enhanced
inspection regime. Under resolution 1441, Iraq is required to provide
the United Nations inspectors and the IAEA ``immediate, unimpeded,
unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all areas, including
underground areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records and means
of transport which they wish to inspect, as well immediate, unimpeded,
unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons
whom the inspectors of the IAEA wish to interview,'' and that includes
outside of Iraq. Resolution 1441 also requires Iraq to provide a
complete, accurate, and full declaration of all aspects of its weapons
of mass destruction and delivery systems programs.

In order to assist the U.N. Security Council in its oversight of
implementation of Iraq's disarmament, resolution 1441 set out a time
line of events. Using November 8, 2000, the date the U.N. Security
Council adopted resolution 1441, Iraq was required to accept the
resolution within 7 days. It did so. Iraq was required to provide a
full declaration of weapons of mass destruction within 30 days of
November 8. It said that its declaration was a full one and it did it
on the 29th day.

The inspectors were to start within 45 days of November 8; the
inspections began on November 25th.

The inspectors were to provide an update on their inspections to the
Security Council within 60 days of the date that the inspections
commenced. They have announced their intention to provide these first
interim progress reports on January 27, within that time limit.

The timeline was observed. There was much dragging of heels, but as you even note, it was improving. I'm cutting your compliance timeline discussion because people can read it up there. The level of Saddam's resistance never, ever approached a choice between the United States' law and the United States' survival. Never. Never, ever, ever, never ever.

And that statement about "broader coalition than 1991" deserves a wankery prize of some sort. Is that including the Solomon Islands or not? You definitely have to buy the first round of beers at poker.

Bush did do just what Gore stated should be done. He got a UN resolution (1441) through the Security Council giving Iraq one final opportunity to comply within a specific deadline. And he built an coalition of countries to provide the severe consequences when Iraq failed to comply in that deadline but instead decided to play more of the same games with inspectors that they'd played for over a decade. To claim anything else is to promote woo.

Bush parceled out a little of their ironclad WMD evidence, and when the inspectors showed it to be crapola, he threw them out and invaded. That's what happened. Bush was in CYA mode. His unsupported game of brinksmanship was becoming unraveled.

Indeed, Bush gamed the process the entire time. If he had pursued Gore's plan honestly, the invasion would not have been rushed but would have been carried out in a timely manner with a broad and deep support from the international community. Or the invasion might not have even happened. If the inspection process had been allowed to work (and it was), Saddam would have been divested of his last feeble grip on power. Instead, he has propelled us forward through the greatest foreign policy blunder in United States history.

And you're running around pretending that Al Gore called the shots on this one. Incredible.

[boloboffin]

I have a sneaking suspicion that before the November election some people are going to have a lot of egg on their face ... that the anti-war democrats are being set up for a really big October surprise. ;)

Is this what you're talking about?

jo54NhiyQig

[varwoche]

I know facts are troubling to your side of this debate. Facts? That's funny.

Of course some conspiracy theories are true and I can't rule out the remote possibility that Loftus isn't actually a raving nutjob. But in order to convince me that he's not a raving nutjob you're going to have to cite a source other than Loftus himself (lol!) substantiating Loftus' mad ravings. A credible source mind you.

[corplinx]

Maybe a mod should split the iraq stuff off onto its own thread in general.

However, here are the facts:
1. saddam never fully disarmed before UN inspectors
2. iraqis have testified that saddam destroyed his remaining munitions without inspectors present
3. saddam told his fbi interrogator that he felt sanctions would lift even if they weren't certified to be disarmed, and he wanted Iran to think that they still had weapons which is why they destroyed the weapons without inspectors present, he wanted his neighbors to think he still had them

Saddam bluffed and got called, and here we are years later because of it. That's what there is evidence and interviews supporting. Syrian stockpiles are a nice idea but the evidence isn't there and occam's razor even falls on the side of the evidence.

[BeAChooser]

Al Gore came out ADAMANTLY against THE impending invasion of Iraq.

IF Bush did not get a UN resolution, international support and left Iraq too soon after an invasion. But Bush satisfied ALL those concerns. If Gore was later against the invasion it was because he'd moved the goal posts from the September speech.

You do well to notice that Bush went through the motions of following Gore's counsel in the same way Saddam Hussein went through the motions of adhering to 1441. I trust you know what the phrase "seized of the matter" means.

Bush did exactly what Gore demanded. He got a unanimous resolution demanding Iraq's full compliance (which they did not give, by the way) and which stated that if Iraq did not fully comply (immediately, unconditionally and actively) there would be "severe consequences". And given that even Gore in September recognized that the administration was talking about invading and the US was mobilizing for an invasion, there can be no doubt that every country that approved that resolution knew EXACTLY what "severe consequences" would be. You did, didn't you? Or were you in La La land?

Bush invaded in an untimely fashion with far less international cooperation than he actually did gather.

If anything, one might argue that Bush allowed Saddam too much time to prepare for the invasion ... perhaps so much time that it allowed Saddam to effectively hide WMD related items in Syria and made the post-invasion insurgency more organized. As to the amount of international cooperation that Bush got, he built a bigger coalition than there was in the first gulf war. In fact, as I've shown elsewhere on this forum, there were fewer countries against the invasion than were in the coalition and many of those "against" countries were against invasion because they feared we'd find they helped Saddam violate the sanctions or had negotiated large contracts that would only be worth anything if Iraq was declared in compliance and the sanctions ended.

The fact the the United States was the last country to expel inspectors from Iraq is something you will never hear the likes of Bill Kristol admit.

We advised them to leave of the eve of the invasin because remaining might have cost them their lives. Surely you wouldn't have recommended an attack with inspectors still there. :rolleyes:

The inspectors WERE doing the job.

Sorry, but Iraq was given "one final" chance (those were the UN's words) to comply immediately, without condition and actively ... and Iraq failed by all three measures. Even at the time of the invasion, inspectors were still not able to interview Iraqis under conditions where they and their families would not be threatened by Saddam's thugs. And that was one of the first things demanded of Iraq. Even at the time of the invasion, Iraq was still hiding documents and materials that the regime has to have known existed and whose possession clearly violated the agreement they made in 1991. If the inspections were working why after the invasion did we discover 35000 boxes of documents and tapes carefully hidden away, many of which contained material that Iraq was specifically prohibited from keeping? If the inspections were working, why after the invasion did we discover underground labs that the Iraqis should have declared? If the inspections were working, why can't you tell us what was in the trucks that went to Syria in the months before the invasion? Sorry, the claim the inspections were working is "wankery" (since you seem to like that term).

Care to tell us all what actual threat Saddam posed for our very survival?

I can do even better than that. I'll show you:

http://www.nationalreview.com/images/mural3.jpg

Consider that Saddam so was crazy that in 1991 he ordered his military to attack the cities of Israel (a non-combatant in that war) with WMD. He was so crazy that it's claimed he had no WMD but wouldn't prove it to the world and instead ended up being pulled out of a dirty hole in the ground and executed.

And consider that one of the World Trade Center bombers was an Iraqi who fled to Iraq after the bombing and who was not only allowed to reside in Iraq but was even given a residence and a job by the regime. And he wasn't the only terrorist on Iraq's payroll.

Consider this. Do you know that in April of 2004, they caught a group of self confessed, al-Qaeda terrorists sneaking into Jordan with vehicles, explosives and chemicals in a plot that was near fruition which would have likely killed tens of thousands of Jordanians and everyone in the US embassy in Amman? Those terrorists admitted that the man behind the plot was Al-Zarqawi and that he met with them to kick off and plan the plot in Baghdad, BEFORE the invasion. Al-Zarqawi was the one that *somehow* managed to get treatment for injuries sustained in Afghanistan in a Baghdad hospital. It's difficult to believe that the Iraqi regime knew nothing about his presence in that hospital or Baghdad. Especially since we a found document which shows that one of al-Zarqawis associates was captured by the government and then released on orders from Saddam himself.

And do you know the tapes that were captured after the invasion show that Saddam and his close aides still considered themselves to be at war with the US despite the 1991 cease fire agreement? They even discussed the use of WMD by terrorists against the US.

That's why Iraq was a threat that needed to be dealt with in 2003.

Donald Rumsfeld even told us that they knew where the WMD were. They Knew! But they didn't. They were lying out they nether regions.

And are you folks lying when you claim with equal certainty that there were no wmd and no wmd programs? When you claim with certainty that Iraq was not supportive of terrorists and wouldn't have anything to do with islamic extremists because Iraq was *sectarian*? I think the same standards should apply to you ... although you aren't under any pressure to actually defend the US like Bush was at the time.

Quote:
Now while he next said that "I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq,"

Inconvenient statement for your position, no?

Not when you realize that Saddam knew he was being taped and wouldn't be likely to put on tape something as incriminating as that. He was crazy ... not totally stupid. Besides, the audio tape can't show him "winking" at everyone as he said it. :D

"We" judged it necessary based on the prevarications and exaggerations of the Bush Administration.

*You* didn't judge anything. You weren't part of the decision process.

Quote:
I don't read that as being unequivocally against invasion. Just invasion under the circumstance then extant.

You lie. Those circumstances were NOT extant, as Gore clearly stated.

Shall I call the forum moderators? I clearly explained at the beginning of this post (and in that other post) why Gore was not unequivocally against invasion ... just invasion with the concerns he cited. Those concerns were all addressed by Bush before and then after the invasion. I know you can't stand it, but that's the God's truth.

The resolution gave no allowance for invasion.

Gore himself stated that the US already had the right to invade, even without the additional resolution. And it's silly to think that anyone signing 1441 didn't know that "severe consequences" meant invasion, especially since the US was gearing up to invade.

The deadlines were met, the problems were being dealt with

To quote you, "I just can't believe anyone still makes that statement seriously." :) Because, the deadlines were not met. Iraq was to have made a full accounting of its WMD in December of 2002. It did not. Even in mid March of 2003, Blix was still complaining that the Iraqis were not being forthcoming with documents and were not allowing interviews which were crucial if the inspectors where to find out what happened to Iraq's WMD, WMD programs and if Iraq still possessed either. Keep in mind that after the invasion we found over 35000 BOXES of documents, many of them clearly related to WMD.

If Bush had been serious about any of these tasks, the invasion of Iraq may have happened later, but it would have been with UN approval and a deep commitment of troops and resources by the coalition.

You were not going to EVER get approval from France, Germany, Russia and China (the only countries with any major resources to add to the effort) given what we found in Iraq after the invasion. They were clearly being bribed and aiding Saddam to violate the sanctions and avoid war. And they had negotiated very lucrative multi-billion dollar contracts with him that could only be activated with him in power and the sanctions removed.

Your second statement is a lie. I didn't mischaracterize anything Gore said.

I think you did for the reasons I cited above. I'll leave it to readers to decide for themselves.


Nothing was in place for a great long while. Nothing in place was the plan until they couldn't muster the political will to invade Iran or Syria (a consequence of fouling up the peace in Iraq).

And you are again mischaracterizing the actual history. And no, I don't think our readers have to be spoon-fed to see that. Why I bet you don't even think we are winning the war now. :)

"Tom, an imminent threat is a political judgment. It’s not a technical judgment. I think Baghdad was actually becoming more dangerous in the last two years than even we realized. Saddam was not controlling the society any longer. In the marketplace of terrorism and of WMD, Iraq well could have been that supplier if the war had not intervened."

Hmm. What was going on in the last two years before the U.S. invasion? What was happening to cause Saddam Hussein to lose control of the society? Could it be, oh, I don't know, maybe we should consider the major cause to possibly be Bush's ill-advised saber-rattling against Iraq?????

You have got to be kidding. Talk about "wankery". I suggest you review the list of quotes from members of both parties and from the leaders of other countries in the years prior to the invasion before putting your foot further into your mouth and blaming Bush for what was happening in Iraq. Seriously ... are you a member of the Bush Is To Blame For Everything society? :D

I'll be charitable and donate the proceeds to the ACLU.

Well of course you would. Bet you're a card carrying member.

I've added a few corrections to the Carl Levin quote you supplied in the interests of truth:

Carl Levin, January 9th:

Quote:
Let us look at the events that led up to the unanimous decision by
the United Nations Security Council on November 8 of last year to set up an enhanced inspection regime to afford Iraq ana FINAL opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations.

... snip ...

Iraq's defeat at the hands of a United States-led coalition in 1991
was followed by a U.N. Security Council resolution in April 1991 that established a number of conditions for a cease fire, notably including a demand for the destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, and Iraq accepted that resolution. (BAC - actually, the demand was that Iraq destroy it's WMD programs, not retain anything to do with them, and neither research, develop, produce, or stockpile anything in the future to do with WMD ... OR long range delivery systems)

... snip ...

With this historical background, the Security Council adopted resolution 1441 on November 8 of last year to set up an enhanced inspection regime. (BAC - NOTE THE FOLLOWING)Under resolution 1441, Iraq is required to provide the United Nations inspectors and the IAEA ``immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all areas, including underground areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom the inspectors of the IAEA wish to interview,'' and that includes outside of Iraq. Resolution 1441 also requires Iraq to provide a complete, accurate, and full declaration of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems programs.

In order to assist the U.N. Security Council in its oversight of implementation of Iraq's disarmament, resolution 1441 set out a time line of events. Using November 8, 2000, the date the U.N. Security Council adopted resolution 1441, Iraq was required to accept the resolution within 7 days. It did so. (BAC - with a number of conditions, some of which were never resolved before the invasion) Iraq was required to provide a full declaration of weapons of mass destruction within 30 days of November 8. It said that its declaration was a full one and it did it on the 29th day. (BAC - But as history proves, it wasn't a full declaration ... by any stretch of the imagination. Blix was still complaining that the Iraqis had to have more material in mid March ... just a week before the invasion. And they did have them. US troops found tens of thousands of boxes of documents, many of which Iraq should have declared and which were carefully hidden by the regime.)


The timeline was observed.

Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

The level of Saddam's resistance never, ever approached a choice between the United States' law and the United States' survival. Never. Never, ever, ever, never ever.

And if we had not invaded, Saddam would have soon been given a clean bill of health (even though he still had plenty of illicit items hidden away). The ISG concluded that it was Iraq's intention to get that clean bill of health which would force removal of sanctions and UN control over it's oil. The many bribes Iraq was making to members of the UN and key non-coalition nations would speed that process. And after the sanctions were removed, those same countries where waiting to help Iraq rearm. The ISG concluded that without those sanctions, oversight and controls, Iraq could quickly reconstitute the chemical and perhaps even biological portions of it's arsenal. And the tapes and documents prove that Iraq hadn't given up interest in nuclear weapons. Such that TODAY, 5 years later, had Saddam not been toppled, we might be facing a resurgent Iraqi military armed with lots of WMD ... making it much more difficult to do anything about Iraq now.

Furthermore, even before the invasion, Iraq was turning to terrorism. Once the sanctions and oversight were gone, that trend would have continued. Al-Qaeda was already operating inside Iraq ... even in Baghdad ... and Iraq's regime had to have known that and allowed it. At the time of the invasion, Iraq already had suicide bomb factories and there is much evidence that it was helping to train terrorists. So where would things stand 5 years later if Saddam had not been toppled? Would we now be seeing massive attacks (like that which was attempted in Jordan) on a daily basis ... all plots planned, funded and trained for in Iraq ... with of course suitable deniability on the part of Iraq? And what would be the world's resolve be to go back in after not doing it in 2003?

And that statement about "broader coalition than 1991" deserves a wankery prize of some sort.

The Germans, Soviets and Chinese didn't help us in 1991. The only countries that really did contribute reasonably large numbers of troops and equipment, besides Britain were Saudi Arabia, France, Egypt, and Syria. Now you really didn't expect any of them to help this time around did you no matter what evidence was offered? That would be utter "wankery", boloboffin.

:D

[BeAChooser]

1. saddam never fully disarmed before UN inspectors

Or even after.

2. iraqis have testified that saddam destroyed his remaining munitions without inspectors present

Which they might also do if they'd moved materials to another country or buried them in locations they didn't want the ISG to find. Keep in mind that the ISG also said they have what they believe is a credible witness saying that WMD related materials were moved to Syria before the war.

3. saddam told his fbi interrogator that he felt sanctions would lift even if they weren't certified to be disarmed, and he wanted Iran to think that they still had weapons which is why they destroyed the weapons without inspectors present, he wanted his neighbors to think he still had them

If true, that was a big mistake on Saddam's part ... thinking Iran was a bigger threat to his regime than the US.

Syrian stockpiles are a nice idea but the evidence isn't there and occam's razor even falls on the side of the evidence.

Does it? What was the contents of the armed truck convoys that went to Syria before the war? Why can't the ISG learn what it was? Why were Russian generals and Spetznatz in Iraq during that time? Why did Iraq's regime sanitize files, computer and facilities thought related to WMD before, during and even after the invasion? How can that be explained as part of their supposed fear of Iran? Why were ISG inspectors and those they sought to interview threatened so much that in the end the ISG had to quit because it was judged to dangerous to continue looking?

What about the documents that were discovered in Iraq but only translated after the ISG effort ended? Some of them clearly show that the ISG's conclusions about the WMD programs having been ended are wrong. For example, they show that Iraq was buying large quantities of materials specifically prohibited by the sanctions that are used in the production of chemical warfare agents. They include orders from Saddam to hide "special" items to underground storage. And when one of the US officers charged with looking for WMD immediately after the invasion comes out to complain that he found large underground bunkers built UNDER a river in 2002 that locals told him contained WMD, why do you simply ignore that? Especially since they weren't searched until 2006 and then the CIA could only say they'd been looted. What were they built for?

I think there are far too many unanswered questions to simply dismiss the possibility that Iraq was doing just what the administration claimed or to claim with 100% confidence that Iraq had no wmd, no wmd programs, wasn't working with terrorists, and wasn't a threat to the US.

[boloboffin]

Oh, my. I'm so glad I decided to come back and deal with this properly. The more BeAChooser talks, the more he/she reveals his/her hand as simply a more literate version of the 9/11 conspiracists I regularly have discussions with.

IF Bush did not get a UN resolution, international support and left Iraq too soon after an invasion. But Bush satisfied ALL those concerns. If Gore was later against the invasion it was because he'd moved the goal posts from the September speech.

Nope. Bush didn't satisfy any of those concerns at all. The UN resolution said nothing about what the severe consequences were, and the phrase "seized of the matter" which you so blithely skipped over (and with so many words!) means that the UN was determined to keep control of the matter. It would be they that determined the compliance or non-compliance of Iraq (which they were doing!) and should they finally judge Iraq non-compliant, then the matter would return to the UN for a decision of severe consequences.

Bush rode roughshod over the entire process, and when his "intelligence" started proving to be utterly false, he threw the inspectors out and started bombing innocent Iraqi citizens. None of Gore's concerns were satisfied by any stretch of the imagination.

And given that even Gore in September recognized that the administration was talking about invading and the US was mobilizing for an invasion, there can be no doubt that every country that approved that resolution knew EXACTLY what "severe consequences" would be. You did, didn't you? Or were you in La La land?

Everyone knew what Bush was up to. The determination of "severe consequences" was yet to be determined by the UN. That's not the same thing. More wankery from BAC.

If anything, one might argue that Bush allowed Saddam too much time to prepare for the invasion ... perhaps so much time that it allowed Saddam to effectively hide WMD related items in Syria and made the post-invasion insurgency more organized. As to the amount of international cooperation that Bush got, he built a bigger coalition than there was in the first gulf war. In fact, as I've shown elsewhere on this forum, there were fewer countries against the invasion than were in the coalition and many of those "against" countries were against invasion because they feared we'd find they helped Saddam violate the sanctions or had negotiated large contracts that would only be worth anything if Iraq was declared in compliance and the sanctions ended.

Wow, you are committed to it, aren't you? You're spouting malarkey about hiding stuff in Syria and you're repeating the insanity about a bigger coalition.

Yes, Bush got the Solomon Islands to sign on.. oh, wait. He said they did and the Solomon Islands protested that they had not. The Solomon Islands gave Bush the finger.

Sheesh. In 1991:

The United States, especially Secretary of State James Baker, assembled a coalition of forces to join it in opposing Iraq, consisting of forces from 34 countries: Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, France, Greece, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Spain, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States itself[17]. Although they did not contribute any forces, Japan and West Germany did make financial contributions totaling $10 billion and $6.6 billion respectively. US troops represented 47% of the coalition’s 2,660,000 troops in Iraq.

In 2003:

The original list prepared in March 2003 included 49 members. Of those 49, only six besides the U.S. contributed troops to the invasion force (the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Australia, Poland, and Denmark), 33 provided some number of troops to support the occupation after the invasion was complete. Six members have no military.

The quotes are from Wikipedia's articles on the respective wars.

Some number... Iceland contributed about 6, right?

We advised them to leave of the eve of the invasin because remaining might have cost them their lives. Surely you wouldn't have recommended an attack with inspectors still there. :rolleyes:

Bush was the last world leader to throw the UN inspectors out of Iraq. You should take that tap-dancing act on the road.

Sorry, but Iraq was given "one final" chance (those were the UN's words) to comply immediately, without condition and actively ... and Iraq failed by all three measures. Even at the time of the invasion, inspectors were still not able to interview Iraqis under conditions where they and their families would not be threatened by Saddam's thugs. And that was one of the first things demanded of Iraq. Even at the time of the invasion, Iraq was still hiding documents and materials that the regime has to have known existed and whose possession clearly violated the agreement they made in 1991. If the inspections were working why after the invasion did we discover 35000 boxes of documents and tapes carefully hidden away, many of which contained material that Iraq was specifically prohibited from keeping? If the inspections were working, why after the invasion did we discover underground labs that the Iraqis should have declared? If the inspections were working, why can't you tell us what was in the trucks that went to Syria in the months before the invasion? Sorry, the claim the inspections were working is "wankery" (since you seem to like that term).

What was in those trucks? Well, why can't you tell us? I posit that it was your brain in those trucks. There's just as much evidence of that as anything else.

I can do even better than that. I'll show you:

http://www.nationalreview.com/images/mural3.jpg

"Look, Mommy, I painted it all by myself!" :rolleyes:

Thank you for this stunning proof that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks. We've been waiting for it ever so patiently.

Consider that Saddam so was crazy that in 1991 he ordered his military to attack the cities of Israel (a non-combatant in that war) with WMD. He was so crazy that it's claimed he had no WMD but wouldn't prove it to the world and instead ended up being pulled out of a dirty hole in the ground and executed.

And consider that one of the World Trade Center bombers was an Iraqi who fled to Iraq after the bombing and who was not only allowed to reside in Iraq but was even given a residence and a job by the regime. And he wasn't the only terrorist on Iraq's payroll.

Consider this. Do you know that in April of 2004, they caught a group of self confessed, al-Qaeda terrorists sneaking into Jordan with vehicles, explosives and chemicals in a plot that was near fruition which would have likely killed tens of thousands of Jordanians and everyone in the US embassy in Amman? Those terrorists admitted that the man behind the plot was Al-Zarqawi and that he met with them to kick off and plan the plot in Baghdad, BEFORE the invasion. Al-Zarqawi was the one that *somehow* managed to get treatment for injuries sustained in Afghanistan in a Baghdad hospital. It's difficult to believe that the Iraqi regime knew nothing about his presence in that hospital or Baghdad. Especially since we a found document which shows that one of al-Zarqawis associates was captured by the government and then released on orders from Saddam himself.

And do you know the tapes that were captured after the invasion show that Saddam and his close aides still considered themselves to be at war with the US despite the 1991 cease fire agreement? They even discussed the use of WMD by terrorists against the US.

That's why Iraq was a threat that needed to be dealt with in 2003.

Only in La-la land is a 2004 plot a reason to invade Iraq in 2003. ZOMG, Zarqawi got into a Baghdad hospital! Saddam's on tape not liking us! The Constitution is in peril! How will America survive?

You display no concept of what the difference is between law and survival. America's survival was never in such imminent danger that Bush had to invade in 2003. Never, never, never, never ever.


And are you folks lying when you claim with equal certainty that there were no wmd and no wmd programs? When you claim with certainty that Iraq was not supportive of terrorists and wouldn't have anything to do with islamic extremists because Iraq was *sectarian*? I think the same standards should apply to you ... although you aren't under any pressure to actually defend the US like Bush was at the time.

It's alway fun to see what my debate opponents pretend my words to be.

Iraq didn't have any WMD. Nope. Not a one. Not a single one. Plans to maybe start getting some once they could get into a position to start thinking about plans to start getting some? Yeah.

Where have you heard me say anything about Iraq not being supportive of terrorists? Please stick to my words. Supportive of al-Qaeda? Uh, no. Terrorists? Yes. Islamic extremists? They come in many flavors. Al-Qaeda? No.

I clearly explained at the beginning of this post (and in that other post) why Gore was not unequivocally against invasion ... just invasion with the concerns he cited. Those concerns were all addressed by Bush before and then after the invasion. I know you can't stand it, but that's the God's truth.

God doesn't exist, and Bush only paid lip service to Gore's concerns in his rush to invade. I know you can't stand it. Deal.

Gore himself stated that the US already had the right to invade, even without the additional resolution. And it's silly to think that anyone signing 1441 didn't know that "severe consequences" meant invasion, especially since the US was gearing up to invade.

Now I've finally caught your tone. It's pouting. "We got Gore's stupid UN resolution. Whize everbody so mad??? Whaaaaaaaaa!"

To quote you, "I just can't believe anyone still makes that statement seriously." :) Because, the deadlines were not met. Iraq was to have made a full accounting of its WMD in December of 2002. It did not. Even in mid March of 2003, Blix was still complaining that the Iraqis were not being forthcoming with documents and were not allowing interviews which were crucial if the inspectors where to find out what happened to Iraq's WMD, WMD programs and if Iraq still possessed either. Keep in mind that after the invasion we found over 35000 BOXES of documents, many of them clearly related to WMD.

And it was being handled. The UN was remaining "seized of the matter." Then Bush threw them out.

You were not going to EVER get approval from France, Germany, Russia and China (the only countries with any major resources to add to the effort) given what we found in Iraq after the invasion.

Hmm. Japan gave $10 billion in resources to the 1991 Gulf War. What was their contribution to the invasion of Iraq? I think they sent 600 soldiers after the fall of Baghdad? Yeah.

They were clearly being bribed and aiding Saddam to violate the sanctions and avoid war. And they had negotiated very lucrative multi-billion dollar contracts with him that could only be activated with him in power and the sanctions removed.

So the Iraq War was the Right's way of reliving the good old Cold War days. Great. 4,000 American families want their children back.

I suggest you review the list of quotes from members of both parties and from the leaders of other countries in the years prior to the invasion before putting your foot further into your mouth and blaming Bush for what was happening in Iraq.

*sigh* Bush being a total :rule10 had nothing at all to do with destabilizing Iraq. These missives you keep posting from La-la Land are so instructive.

And if we had not invaded, Saddam would have soon been given a clean bill of health (even though he still had plenty of illicit items hidden away). *snipping away dire forecasts of imminent doom the evidence of which is vastly lacking***

Furthermore, even before the invasion, Iraq was turning to terrorism. Once the sanctions and oversight were gone, that trend would have continued. Al-Qaeda was already operating inside Iraq ... even in Baghdad ... and Iraq's regime had to have known that and allowed it.

And Bush being a total :rule10 had NOTHING to do with Iraq destabilizing. First you tell us Saddam was losing control in the country and now they're to blame for al-Qaeda operating in the country. Pick a lane to Crazyland, BAC.

At the time of the invasion, Iraq already had suicide bomb factories and there is much evidence that it was helping to train terrorists. So where would things stand 5 years later if Saddam had not been toppled? Would we now be seeing massive attacks (like that which was attempted in Jordan) on a daily basis ... all plots planned, funded and trained for in Iraq ... with of course suitable deniability on the part of Iraq? And what would be the world's resolve be to go back in after not doing it in 2003?

Here? No. Not in America, unless Saddam had magical water-capable suicide bomber cars. Maybe THAT's what was in those 35000 boxes of hidden balderdash!

And you've got to be kidding me... The world's take on going back after not invading in 2003 and getting relentless attacks from water-capable suicide car bombs would have been "Oh, darn, now we can't. Oh, where, oh, where has my Underdog gone?"

Please lie down with a cold rag across your forehead and perhaps the fever will pass.

The Germans, Soviets and Chinese didn't help us in 1991. The only countries that really did contribute reasonably large numbers of troops and equipment, besides Britain were Saudi Arabia, France, Egypt, and Syria. Now you really didn't expect any of them to help this time around did you no matter what evidence was offered? That would be utter "wankery", boloboffin.

In 1991, the United States forces constituted about 54% of the total. In 2003, the proportion jumped to 84%.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_gul_war_coa_for-military-gulf-war-coalition-forces

And you will notice that we gave almost 700,000 troops to make up that 54% total in the 1991 Gulf War, whereas our 250,000 number made up 84% of the invasion forces in 2003. Perhaps window dressing counts as evidence in La-la Land, but everyone else here understands the difference between a real coalition and what Bush did.

[Dr Adequate]

I know facts are troubling to your side of this debate. This article is full of them and here's just part of it's contents: Heh-heh, another right-wing woo suckered by Loftus.

Those aren't facts. Those are the assertions of a conspiracy theorist who fits somewhere on the scale between outrageous liar and complete lunatic.

I have a sneaking suspicion that before the November election some people are going to have a lot of egg on their face ... that the anti-war democrats are being set up for a really big October surprise. ;) If this "sneaking suspicion" is founded on anything other than wishful thinking and the ravings of John Loftus, feel free to share it with us.

[Dr Adequate]

I can do even better than that. I'll show you:

http://www.nationalreview.com/images/mural3.jpg Saddam threatened our very survival with bad murals?

Well thank **** he didn't unleash his finger-painting.

[BeAChooser]

Bush didn't satisfy any of those concerns at all. The UN resolution said nothing about what the severe consequences were

:rolleyes:

Do you really think the signers of that resolution on November 8th didn't understand what "severe consequences" meant ... given that at the time, the US was busy putting over a quarter million men and women on Iraq's borders, surrounding the country with thousands of armored vehicles and aircraft, and telling Saddam that an invasion was coming to free his people if he didn't get his act together where WMD and terrorism are concerned? They'd have had to be stupid not to understand that was the situation.

Here are excerpts from a speech given by the US President at the UN on September 2, 2002. http://www.c-span.org/executive/bushUN.asp

, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

[b]If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with the international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.

... snip ...

If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.

Events can turn in one of two ways: If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. ... snip ... If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity.


How could they not have known that "serious consequences" meant we'd invade and topple Saddam's regime? How could they not when on September 20, 2002, Bush announced the "Bush Doctrine", which called for unilateral preemptive American strikes on enemy nations found to be developing weapons of mass destruction. Before the invasion, we had good reason to suspect they were and the documents captured after the invasion prove they were.

How could they not know what "serious consequences" meant when this was the statement of the US representative to the UN prior to the vote: http://www.un.org/webcast/usa110802.htm


"By this Resolution, we are now united in trying a different course. That course is to send a clear message to Iraq insisting on its disarmament in the area of weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems, or face the consequences.

... snip ...

Let us be clear: the inspections will not work unless the Iraqi regime cooperates fully with UNMOVIC and the IAEA. We hope all member states now will press Iraq to undertake that cooperation. This resolution is designed to test Iraq's intentions: will it abandon its weapons of mass destruction and its illicit missile programs or continue its delays and defiance of the entire world? Every act of Iraqi non-compliance will be a serious matter, because it would tell us that Iraq has no intention of disarming.

As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this Resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The Resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And one way or another, Mr. President, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of a further Iraqi violation, this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq, or to enforce relevant UN resolutions and protect world peace and security.

To the Government of Iraq, our message is simple: non-compliance no longer is an option.

... snip ...

This Resolution affords Iraq a final opportunity. The Secretary General said on September 12, "If Iraq's defiance continues, the Security Council must face its responsibilities." We concur with the wisdom of his remarks. Members can rely on the United States to live up to its responsibilities if the Iraq regime persists with its refusal to disarm.


With language like that, how could ANYONE have thought "serious consequences" meant something other that our invading and deposing Saddam and his regime? Especially when America was busy assembling a force to do just that? Especially when we'd just invaded Afghanistan to topple the Taliban?

Bush rode roughshod over the entire process,

The French, Germans, Russians and Chinese were not honest brokers. And we had reason to suspect that then. We now know with certainty that many in those countries were indeed taking bribes from the Iraqi regime and had negotiated what would be very lucrative deals on oil and military equipment provided they could keep Saddam in power and eliminate the sanctions. The reality is that because of corruption in the UN staff and the leadership of some of the key Security Council members, the UN was an obstacle to resolving the Iraq situation. Had the US not acted, Saddam and his sons would have surely remained in power, the sanctions would have ended, oil would have flowed freely, Saddam would have rearmed, and the world would now be facing a resurgent Iraq collecting upwards of a 100 dollars a barrel ... enough to fund both army and WMD expansion. And terrorists would continue to have used his country as a safe haven. And likely a source of arms ... even WMD. And then what would you have us do? Besides join you under your blanket of denial?

started bombing innocent Iraqi citizens

:rolleyes:

and you're repeating the insanity about a bigger coalition.

The 2003 Coalition Of The Willing (those who openly supported invasion) consisted of 49 countries (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030327-10.html) with a combined population of over a billion people and a GDP of about $22 trillion. And 30 of those countries had populations over 5 million. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War , some 36 countries formed the coalition in 1991. Of those about 30 had a population over 5 million.

And it's worth noting that those 1991 thirty included Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria, which I don't think anyone could expect to have joined in the 2003 effort given the world's political situation at the time. It also included France, which we now know was closely tied to Saddam's regime. It helped him violate the sanctions, provided Iraq with pre-war intelligence, had negotiated multibillion dollar deals that would only come to fruition if Saddam stayed in power and the sanctions were removed, and had government and business officials being bribed through Saddam's oil vouchers program. Surely you didn't expect France under those circumstances would ever vote for the removal of Saddam by force?

In short, claiming that the coalition in 2003 was larger than that in 1991 is not insanity but clearly a fact.

Furthermore, note that the US government in 2003 said there were another 15 countries that materially supported the invasion effort but did not want their identity disclosed. That's not unlikely since countries like Israel would have certainly liked to see Saddam gone but wouldn't want to have inflamed regional opinions by publically joining the coalition. We now know that Taiwan quietly supported military action. Even Saudi Arabia might have been in that camp (it was learned after the invasion that they did indeed support it even if they publically said they didn't want any Coalition troops in their country). So there were possibly as many as 64 countries in the pro-invasion camp in March 2003.

Now according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governments'_pre-war_positions_on_invasion_of_Iraq , the following Governments said they were against the invasion before the 2003 war: France, Germany, Russia, Belgium, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Greece, Austria, Liechtenstein, Serbia, Czech Republic, Croatia, Slovenia, Finland, Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Chile (although Chili said it was likely they'd approve a UN war resolution if one had one been submitted), African Union (all 52 countries), China, India, Syria, the Arab League (with the exception of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia ... a total of 7 additional countries), Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, and New Zealand. That's an impressive total of 88 countries.

However, if we throw out all the countries with a population under five million in that list, the number becomes 58. And you might wonder about the motivations of some of those countries. Some (like France, Germany and Russia) had a hidden vested interest in supporting Saddam because of bribes, fear we'd discover they violated the sanctions, or because they might desire an outcome that would activate potentially lucrative contracts for oil and arms. Others we might as well classify as enemies of the US and West who would be against anything we wanted in the current WOT environment or because of the nature of their own government (like Syria, Libya, and Vietnam). Deleting those drops the number of countries with populations larger than a five million that were against the war to 52. And the number might actually be lower. Although Norway and Sweden were in this list, they actually were ambiguous in their statements and even provided material support to the war effort. Croatia and Slovenia both signed the Vilnius Group Statement in February of 2003 which said "we are prepared to contribute to an international coalition to enforce its provisions and the disarmament of Iraq. The clear and present danger posed by the Saddam Hussein's regime requires a united response from the community of democracies. We call upon the U.N. Security Council to take the necessary and appropriate action in response to Iraq's continuing threat to international peace and security."

And as pointed out in http://www.pwhce.org/willing.html#maps , every single country in the world that secured its freedom from totalitarianism in the 1990s supported the invasion. Maybe that should tell you something.

Let's take a closer look at Europe since I think the views of Europe are probably more important than those of Africa which contributed many of the countries in the list against invasion that had populations over 5 million (and under 5 million). http://www.pwhce.org/willing.html#maps show a map of the way various countries in Europe leaned in March 2003 regarding this matter. There were 19 in the Coalition Of The Willing. There were 7 openly opposed. There were 8 that were neutral or undeclared. And there were 4 that apparently gave ambiguous signals (for example, Sweden and Norway). And a year later, one can see that there were 20 countries still supporting the war effort, 8 countries against it, 7 countries neutral and 3 that were ambiguous. So Europe was actually on Bush's side in this matter.

And of the countries in Europe that opposed the invasion, France, Germany and Russia (the three largest) had materially aided Saddam just prior to the war, and had government officials and business leaders that were being bribed by Saddam's regime with cash and promises of lucrative contracts if Iraq got a clean bill of health from the inspectors (i.e., there was no invasion). So should they really count as being against invasion? Maybe they should have recused themselves from the matter at the UN?

Yes, Bush got the Solomon Islands to sign on.. oh, wait. He said they did and the Solomon Islands protested that they had not. The Solomon Islands gave Bush the finger.

And your side claims Sweden and Norway were against the invasion, and Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, ... yet we know that all 4 gave material aid to the invasion. Jordan even allowed us to operate from their country. :D

US troops represented 47% of the coalition’s 2,660,000 troops in Iraq

Perhaps you need to look at it regionally? http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/facts/gulfwar/ "The U.S. had more than 500,000 troops in the Persian Gulf War, while the non-U.S. coalition forces equaled roughly 160,000, or 24 percent, of all forces."

And you need to realize of those countries other than the US which provided troops in 1991, Egypt sent about 30,000, France about 14,000, Syria about 14,000, Morocco about 13,000, and Saudi Arabia about a 100,000. Most of the rest supplied relatively small numbers. Surely you don't really expect that Egypt, France, Syria, Morocco and Saudi Arabia would have contributed troops in 2003 under ANY circumstances given the political realities at the time? There was a WOT underway and all five have large muslim populations. And France and Syria had other reasons for not participating. If your thinking is an example of the sort of naivety we might expect from an Obama administration, perhaps we should rethink his qualifications for being President. :)

The original list prepared in March 2003 included 49 members. Of those 49, only six besides the U.S. contributed troops to the invasion force (the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Australia, Poland, and Denmark), 33 provided some number of troops to support the occupation after the invasion was complete.

Did you ever consider that having lots of small countries providing troops actually complicates matters? Did you ever consider that we weren't facing the same type of enemy that we faced in 1991 and the plan for attacking the country was going to be quite different ... quite mobile ... and some countries might not actually be able to effectively support such an effort? Did you ever consider that the WOT might have made us somewhat reluctant (right or wrong) to have large numbers of islamic forces in the mix at that time? Look at what Turkey did, for example. And did we really need more troops, considering that our forces defeated Saddam's in record time and against the expectations of all those non-coalition nations and detractors? Remember how so many on the non-coalition side were saying we faced a lengthy campaign or were about to be blooded and defeated by Saddam's forces? Did we really need to add such "negative waves, Moriarity"?

Bush was the last world leader to throw the UN inspectors out of Iraq.

And I bet the inspectors are glad they weren't around when Shock and Awe hit. :D

What was in those trucks? Well, why can't you tell us? I posit that it was your brain in those trucks.

Lame. Really lame. If the Iraqis were actually cooperating with UN inspectors, you should be able to tell us what was in those trucks. We have Israelis, Syrians, US military personel, and even top level members of Saddam's regime telling us that those trucks contained WMD related items. Yet you just pull the blanket over your head and provide lame retorts when asked about that. Telling.

Thank you for this stunning proof that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

I never suggested that at all. But that mural does show in stunning detail where Saddam's allegiance was ... it does show that Saddam OPENLY supported the actions of the 9/11 terrorists. In fact, Saddam was the ONLY leader of a country in the world to openly APPLAUD the 9/11 attack and the murder of over 3000 innocent people. Why did he do that? Well perhaps those captured audio tapes that you ignore tell us the reason. Because Saddam and his staff still considered themselves at war with the United States despite a cease fire agreement that your side claims ended that war.

Only in La-la land is a 2004 plot a reason to invade Iraq in 2003.

Is comprehension and simple logic a problem for you? We knew before the war that al-Zarqawi was in Iraq ... in Baghdad ... meeting with terrorists to plot attacks against us. Al-Zarqawi had already been tried and convicted (in absentia) in Jordan for the murder of a US diplomat (a plot hatched in Baghdad) and there were indications he was involved with al-Qaeda. Afterall, he'd been in Afghanistan when we attacked.

Long before the invasion, Jordan and the US told Saddam that al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad and asked Iraq to turn him over to us. That request was ignored. The significance of the Jordan Bombing case is that it proves the administration was correct. Al-Qaeda was using Iraq as a staging area for attacks against the West. Al-Zarqawi was working with al-Qaeda BEFORE the invasion. And that he did it from Baghdad. Just like the administration claimed.

You display no concept of what the difference is between law and survival.

And if matters had been left up to the likes of you, tens of thousands of innocent Jordanians and everyone in the US embassy in Jordan would now be dead. And in the intervening 5 years, al-Qaeda in Iraq might have launched half a dozen similar attacks ... perhaps some even involving WMD, courtesy of Saddam. Of course, Saddam would deny his involvement and then what would you do? :rolleyes:

America's survival was never in such imminent danger that Bush had to invade in 2003.

Bush never claimed that Iraq was an "imminent" danger in 2003.

Iraq didn't have any WMD. Nope. Not a one. Not a single one.

Then explain the still viable binary sarin shell that turned up as an IED after the invasion? For starters.

But I think you prove my point that your side claims with 100% certainty something for which there has to be considerable doubt considering all the facts now known. You can't tell us the contents of those trucks. You can't explain the eyewitness statements that the contents of those trucks were buried in Syria right before the war. You can't tell us why Saddam built bunkers under a river in 2002 ... bunkers that the US government investigator who found them shortly after the invasion said were believed to contain WMD according to the locals in the area. You can't tell us what was in them since in 2006 when the CIA finally got around to looking at them, they said they'd been looted. You can't tell us why Saddam's regime sanitized files, computers and facilities the ISG still believes were connected to WMD. Does your certainty make you liars like your side claims Bush to be just because he expressed certainty about things for which there was some doubt?

Where have you heard me say anything about Iraq not being supportive of terrorists? Please stick to my words. Supportive of al-Qaeda? Uh, no.

Then explain the documents found after the invasion that show Saddam's regime knew al-Qaeda were in Iraq yet didn't seem to do anything effective about that. Explain the documents that show they caught a known associate of al-Zarqawi, an associate the capturing officer was convinced was guilty of crimes against Iraq, and who Saddam personally ordered be released. Explain the documents which show Iraq warned the Taliban and al-Qaeda that the US was about attack. And if you don't think they were supportive of al-Qaeda, then explain the mural and Saddam's open congratulation of them for their attack on 9/11.

God doesn't exist

And that view is why you will be one of the first to go if islamofanatics win this struggle we are now engaged in worldwide. A struggle you seem to want to ignore. ;)


Quote:
To quote you, "I just can't believe anyone still makes that statement seriously." Because, the deadlines were not met. Iraq was to have made a full accounting of its WMD in December of 2002. It did not. Even in mid March of 2003, Blix was still complaining that the Iraqis were not being forthcoming with documents and were not allowing interviews which were crucial if the inspectors where to find out what happened to Iraq's WMD, WMD programs and if Iraq still possessed either. ... snip ...

And it was being handled. The UN was remaining "seized of the matter." Then Bush threw them out.

What was that about "pouting"? I'm not going to go around and around in circles with you. Our readers can make up their own minds about this based on the facts that have been presented. :D

Hmm. Japan gave $10 billion in resources to the 1991 Gulf War. What was their contribution to the invasion of Iraq? I think they sent 600 soldiers after the fall of Baghdad? Yeah.

Japan didn't contribute any troops at all in 1991. And Iraq was a dangerous place after the fall of Baghdad. You need to understand that for Japan, given what it's constitution says, sending even one soldier was a major show of support. But then I guess your side just isn't going to be appreciative of America's allies. If you have your way, before long we'll be standing alone.

4,000 American families want their children back.

Actually, you don't speak for all those families. In fact, I think it's a safe bet that your side of this debate doesn't speak for the vast majority of those families. Because they want to see things through to a successful conclusion in Iraq ... so their loved ones will not have died in vain ... rather than cut and run as Obama says we should do now ... even as things turn very promising.

Bush being a total had nothing at all to do with destabilizing Iraq.

Iraq was already unstable before we invaded. And that instability ... that lack of control it had on its WMD activities and arsenal ... and the lack of willingness to do anything about the terrorists operating within the country ... is what made it so very, very dangerous. Iraq was not only allowing terrorists to remain and operate from the country, it was actively training terrorists. It's odd how those on your side of this debate don't grasp that.


Quote:
At the time of the invasion, Iraq already had suicide bomb factories and there is much evidence that it was helping to train terrorists. So where would things stand 5 years later if Saddam had not been toppled? Would we now be seeing massive attacks (like that which was attempted in Jordan) on a daily basis ... all plots planned, funded and trained for in Iraq ... with of course suitable deniability on the part of Iraq? And what would be the world's resolve be to go back in after not doing it in 2003?

Here? No. Not in America, unless Saddam had magical water-capable suicide bomber cars.

Here we have another example of that certainty your side displays. If this is the cavalier way that Obama will treat potential threats to America (and he's doing it with Iran now), then Obama is not the right person for the job. At least Hillary understood some of the danger in ignoring enemies, even if she was gaming things to maintain political power and line her purse.

In 1991, the United States forces constituted about 54% of the total. In 2003, the proportion jumped to 84%.

No, as I noted earlier, in the region around Iraq involved in the conflict, US forces constituted roughly 75% of the forces in 1991. And many of the 1991 countries would not have been reliable in the 2003 political situation. The WOT changed many things.


http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_gul_war_coa_for-military-gulf-war-coalition-forces

And you will notice that we gave almost 700,000 troops to make up that 54% total in the 1991 Gulf War

I'm puzzled. Your linked web page shows we supplied 697,000 troops out of a total of 956,600. Now 697000 divided by 956,600 is almost 73% not 54%. :D

[corplinx]

So, even though we had all these people involved with smuggling WMDs to Syria, we can't find a single one who will talk for a large reward and immunity?

Hmmmmm..... thats.... odd.

Meanwhile we did have people come forward about destruction of WMDs and even pointed out where it was done and physical evidence at the sites corroborated it.

Hmmmmmm.........

Gee, this is a tough one to figure out. I'm going to have to go with Syrian stockpiles since as we all know, truckers have unbreakable wills and would never come forward about their cargo.

[gdnp]

If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions.

Hmmm...why would he need to work with the security council for the necessary resolutions if the current resolution was already sufficient....

this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq, or to enforce relevant UN resolutions and protect world peace and security.

Hmmm... does not constrain any member state....I guess that means it also doesn't authorize any member state, doesn't it?

All Bush is saying in this speech is that if Iraq does not comply to his satisfaction that he reserves the right to invade, regardless of whether the UN approves or not.

The UN did not approve.

He decided to go in without them.

[gdnp]

:rolleyes:

Do you really think the signers of that resolution on November 8th didn't understand what "severe consequences" meant ... given that at the time, the US was busy putting over a quarter million men and women on Iraq's borders, surrounding the country with thousands of armored vehicles and aircraft, and telling Saddam that an invasion was coming to free his people if he didn't get his act together where WMD and terrorism are concerned? They'd have had to be stupid not to understand that was the situation.

Here are excerpts from a speech given by the US President at the UN on September 2, 2002. http://www.c-span.org/executive/bushUN.asp



How could they not have known that "serious consequences" meant we'd invade and topple Saddam's regime? How could they not when on September 20, 2002, Bush announced the "Bush Doctrine", which called for unilateral preemptive American strikes on enemy nations found to be developing weapons of mass destruction. Before the invasion, we had good reason to suspect they were and the documents captured after the invasion prove they were.

How could they not know what "serious consequences" meant when this was the statement of the US representative to the UN prior to the vote: http://www.un.org/webcast/usa110802.htm



With language like that, how could ANYONE have thought "serious consequences" meant something other that our invading and deposing Saddam and his regime? Especially when America was busy assembling a force to do just that? Especially when we'd just invaded Afghanistan to topple the Taliban?



The French, Germans, Russians and Chinese were not honest brokers. And we had reason to suspect that then. We now know with certainty that many in those countries were indeed taking bribes from the Iraqi regime and had negotiated what would be very lucrative deals on oil and military equipment provided they could keep Saddam in power and eliminate the sanctions. The reality is that because of corruption in the UN staff and the leadership of some of the key Security Council members, the UN was an obstacle to resolving the Iraq situation. Had the US not acted, Saddam and his sons would have surely remained in power, the sanctions would have ended, oil would have flowed freely, Saddam would have rearmed, and the world would now be facing a resurgent Iraq collecting upwards of a 100 dollars a barrel ... enough to fund both army and WMD expansion. And terrorists would continue to have used his country as a safe haven. And likely a source of arms ... even WMD. And then what would you have us do? Besides join you under your blanket of denial?



:rolleyes:



The 2003 Coalition Of The Willing (those who openly supported invasion) consisted of 49 countries (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030327-10.html) with a combined population of over a billion people and a GDP of about $22 trillion. And 30 of those countries had populations over 5 million. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War , some 36 countries formed the coalition in 1991. Of those about 30 had a population over 5 million.

And it's worth noting that those 1991 thirty included Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria, which I don't think anyone could expect to have joined in the 2003 effort given the world's political situation at the time. It also included France, which we now know was closely tied to Saddam's regime. It helped him violate the sanctions, provided Iraq with pre-war intelligence, had negotiated multibillion dollar deals that would only come to fruition if Saddam stayed in power and the sanctions were removed, and had government and business officials being bribed through Saddam's oil vouchers program. Surely you didn't expect France under those circumstances would ever vote for the removal of Saddam by force?

In short, claiming that the coalition in 2003 was larger than that in 1991 is not insanity but clearly a fact.

Furthermore, note that the US government in 2003 said there were another 15 countries that materially supported the invasion effort but did not want their identity disclosed. That's not unlikely since countries like Israel would have certainly liked to see Saddam gone but wouldn't want to have inflamed regional opinions by publically joining the coalition. We now know that Taiwan quietly supported military action. Even Saudi Arabia might have been in that camp (it was learned after the invasion that they did indeed support it even if they publically said they didn't want any Coalition troops in their country). So there were possibly as many as 64 countries in the pro-invasion camp in March 2003.

Now according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governments'_pre-war_positions_on_invasion_of_Iraq , the following Governments said they were against the invasion before the 2003 war: France, Germany, Russia, Belgium, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Greece, Austria, Liechtenstein, Serbia, Czech Republic, Croatia, Slovenia, Finland, Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Chile (although Chili said it was likely they'd approve a UN war resolution if one had one been submitted), African Union (all 52 countries), China, India, Syria, the Arab League (with the exception of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia ... a total of 7 additional countries), Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, and New Zealand. That's an impressive total of 88 countries.

However, if we throw out all the countries with a population under five million in that list, the number becomes 58. And you might wonder about the motivations of some of those countries. Some (like France, Germany and Russia) had a hidden vested interest in supporting Saddam because of bribes, fear we'd discover they violated the sanctions, or because they might desire an outcome that would activate potentially lucrative contracts for oil and arms. Others we might as well classify as enemies of the US and West who would be against anything we wanted in the current WOT environment or because of the nature of their own government (like Syria, Libya, and Vietnam). Deleting those drops the number of countries with populations larger than a five million that were against the war to 52. And the number might actually be lower. Although Norway and Sweden were in this list, they actually were ambiguous in their statements and even provided material support to the war effort. Croatia and Slovenia both signed the Vilnius Group Statement in February of 2003 which said "we are prepared to contribute to an international coalition to enforce its provisions and the disarmament of Iraq. The clear and present danger posed by the Saddam Hussein's regime requires a united response from the community of democracies. We call upon the U.N. Security Council to take the necessary and appropriate action in response to Iraq's continuing threat to international peace and security."

And as pointed out in http://www.pwhce.org/willing.html#maps , every single country in the world that secured its freedom from totalitarianism in the 1990s supported the invasion. Maybe that should tell you something.

Let's take a closer look at Europe since I think the views of Europe are probably more important than those of Africa which contributed many of the countries in the list against invasion that had populations over 5 million (and under 5 million). http://www.pwhce.org/willing.html#maps show a map of the way various countries in Europe leaned in March 2003 regarding this matter. There were 19 in the Coalition Of The Willing. There were 7 openly opposed. There were 8 that were neutral or undeclared. And there were 4 that apparently gave ambiguous signals (for example, Sweden and Norway). And a year later, one can see that there were 20 countries still supporting the war effort, 8 countries against it, 7 countries neutral and 3 that were ambiguous. So Europe was actually on Bush's side in this matter.

And of the countries in Europe that opposed the invasion, France, Germany and Russia (the three largest) had materially aided Saddam just prior to the war, and had government officials and business leaders that were being bribed by Saddam's regime with cash and promises of lucrative contracts if Iraq got a clean bill of health from the inspectors (i.e., there was no invasion). So should they really count as being against invasion? Maybe they should have recused themselves from the matter at the UN?



And your side claims Sweden and Norway were against the invasion, and Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, ... yet we know that all 4 gave material aid to the invasion. Jordan even allowed us to operate from their country. :D



Perhaps you need to look at it regionally? http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/facts/gulfwar/ "The U.S. had more than 500,000 troops in the Persian Gulf War, while the non-U.S. coalition forces equaled roughly 160,000, or 24 percent, of all forces."

And you need to realize of those countries other than the US which provided troops in 1991, Egypt sent about 30,000, France about 14,000, Syria about 14,000, Morocco about 13,000, and Saudi Arabia about a 100,000. Most of the rest supplied relatively small numbers. Surely you don't really expect that Egypt, France, Syria, Morocco and Saudi Arabia would have contributed troops in 2003 under ANY circumstances given the political realities at the time? There was a WOT underway and all five have large muslim populations. And France and Syria had other reasons for not participating. If your thinking is an example of the sort of naivety we might expect from an Obama administration, perhaps we should rethink his qualifications for being President. :)



Did you ever consider that having lots of small countries providing troops actually complicates matters? Did you ever consider that we weren't facing the same type of enemy that we faced in 1991 and the plan for attacking the country was going to be quite different ... quite mobile ... and some countries might not actually be able to effectively support such an effort? Did you ever consider that the WOT might have made us somewhat reluctant (right or wrong) to have large numbers of islamic forces in the mix at that time? Look at what Turkey did, for example. And did we really need more troops, considering that our forces defeated Saddam's in record time and against the expectations of all those non-coalition nations and detractors? Remember how so many on the non-coalition side were saying we faced a lengthy campaign or were about to be blooded and defeated by Saddam's forces? Did we really need to add such "negative waves, Moriarity"?



And I bet the inspectors are glad they weren't around when Shock and Awe hit. :D



Lame. Really lame. If the Iraqis were actually cooperating with UN inspectors, you should be able to tell us what was in those trucks. We have Israelis, Syrians, US military personel, and even top level members of Saddam's regime telling us that those trucks contained WMD related items. Yet you just pull the blanket over your head and provide lame retorts when asked about that. Telling.



I never suggested that at all. But that mural does show in stunning detail where Saddam's allegiance was ... it does show that Saddam OPENLY supported the actions of the 9/11 terrorists. In fact, Saddam was the ONLY leader of a country in the world to openly APPLAUD the 9/11 attack and the murder of over 3000 innocent people. Why did he do that? Well perhaps those captured audio tapes that you ignore tell us the reason. Because Saddam and his staff still considered themselves at war with the United States despite a cease fire agreement that your side claims ended that war.



Is comprehension and simple logic a problem for you? We knew before the war that al-Zarqawi was in Iraq ... in Baghdad ... meeting with terrorists to plot attacks against us. Al-Zarqawi had already been tried and convicted (in absentia) in Jordan for the murder of a US diplomat (a plot hatched in Baghdad) and there were indications he was involved with al-Qaeda. Afterall, he'd been in Afghanistan when we attacked.

Long before the invasion, Jordan and the US told Saddam that al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad and asked Iraq to turn him over to us. That request was ignored. The significance of the Jordan Bombing case is that it proves the administration was correct. Al-Qaeda was using Iraq as a staging area for attacks against the West. Al-Zarqawi was working with al-Qaeda BEFORE the invasion. And that he did it from Baghdad. Just like the administration claimed.



And if matters had been left up to the likes of you, tens of thousands of innocent Jordanians and everyone in the US embassy in Jordan would now be dead. And in the intervening 5 years, al-Qaeda in Iraq might have launched half a dozen similar attacks ... perhaps some even involving WMD, courtesy of Saddam. Of course, Saddam would deny his involvement and then what would you do? :rolleyes:



Bush never claimed that Iraq was an "imminent" danger in 2003.



Then explain the still viable binary sarin shell that turned up as an IED after the invasion? For starters.

But I think you prove my point that your side claims with 100% certainty something for which there has to be considerable doubt considering all the facts now known. You can't tell us the contents of those trucks. You can't explain the eyewitness statements that the contents of those trucks were buried in Syria right before the war. You can't tell us why Saddam built bunkers under a river in 2002 ... bunkers that the US government investigator who found them shortly after the invasion said were believed to contain WMD according to the locals in the area. You can't tell us what was in them since in 2006 when the CIA finally got around to looking at them, they said they'd been looted. You can't tell us why Saddam's regime sanitized files, computers and facilities the ISG still believes were connected to WMD. Does your certainty make you liars like your side claims Bush to be just because he expressed certainty about things for which there was some doubt?



Then explain the documents found after the invasion that show Saddam's regime knew al-Qaeda were in Iraq yet didn't seem to do anything effective about that. Explain the documents that show they caught a known associate of al-Zarqawi, an associate the capturing officer was convinced was guilty of crimes against Iraq, and who Saddam personally ordered be released. Explain the documents which show Iraq warned the Taliban and al-Qaeda that the US was about attack. And if you don't think they were supportive of al-Qaeda, then explain the mural and Saddam's open congratulation of them for their attack on 9/11.



And that view is why you will be one of the first to go if islamofanatics win this struggle we are now engaged in worldwide. A struggle you seem to want to ignore. ;)



What was that about "pouting"? I'm not going to go around and around in circles with you. Our readers can make up their own minds about this based on the facts that have been presented. :D



Japan didn't contribute any troops at all in 1991. And Iraq was a dangerous place after the fall of Baghdad. You need to understand that for Japan, given what it's constitution says, sending even one soldier was a major show of support. But then I guess your side just isn't going to be appreciative of America's allies. If you have your way, before long we'll be standing alone.



Actually, you don't speak for all those families. In fact, I think it's a safe bet that your side of this debate doesn't speak for the vast majority of those families. Because they want to see things through to a successful conclusion in Iraq ... so their loved ones will not have died in vain ... rather than cut and run as Obama says we should do now ... even as things turn very promising.



Iraq was already unstable before we invaded. And that instability ... that lack of control it had on its WMD activities and arsenal ... and the lack of willingness to do anything about the terrorists operating within the country ... is what made it so very, very dangerous. Iraq was not only allowing terrorists to remain and operate from the country, it was actively training terrorists. It's odd how those on your side of this debate don't grasp that.



Here we have another example of that certainty your side displays. If this is the cavalier way that Obama will treat potential threats to America (and he's doing it with Iran now), then Obama is not the right person for the job. At least Hillary understood some of the danger in ignoring enemies, even if she was gaming things to maintain political power and line her purse.



No, as I noted earlier, in the region around Iraq involved in the conflict, US forces constituted roughly 75% of the forces in 1991. And many of the 1991 countries would not have been reliable in the 2003 political situation. The WOT changed many things.



I'm puzzled. Your linked web page shows we supplied 697,000 troops out of a total of 956,600. Now 697000 divided by 956,600 is almost 73% not 54%. :D

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, bury them with BS". ...

[BeAChooser]

So, even though we had all these people involved with smuggling WMDs to Syria, we can't find a single one who will talk for a large reward and immunity?

Who has promised that? Source? In fact, the ISG said that they were stopping their own investigation because it was too dangerous. Imagine how dangerous it would be to someone not so well connected. And their family. :)

eanwhile we did have people come forward about destruction of WMDs and even pointed out where it was done and physical evidence at the sites corroborated it.

No one is denying that Iraqis did destroy some WMD. But the UN inspectors admitted that they couldn't tell how much and when. Nor can they confirm that all the WMD production equipment was destroyed. Because we don't know how much their really was. We do know that the Iraqis boasted on tape in the mid 90's that they'd completely fooled UN inspectors as to the size of their stockpiles, production facilities and WMD programs. Laughed at the UN, in fact. :)

[BeAChooser]

All Bush is saying in this speech is that if Iraq does not comply to his satisfaction that he reserves the right to invade, regardless of whether the UN approves or not.

The UN did not approve.

He decided to go in without them.

Which is all that Gore asked Bush to do.

Gore - "Congress should also urge the President to make every effort to obtain a fresh demand from the Security Council for prompt, unconditional compliance by Iraq within a definite period of time. If the Council will not provide such language, then other choices remain open, but in any event the President should be urged to take the time to assemble the broadest possible international support for his course of action."

[BeAChooser]

If you can't effectively challenge the opponents facts, say this ...

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, bury them with BS". ...

[JEROME DA GNOME]

http://www.nationalreview.com/images/mural3.jpg




This has to be some of the weakest war propaganda I have ever seen.


People still believe that Saddam Hussein did 9/11?


:pigsfly

[BeAChooser]

TPeople still believe that Saddam Hussein did 9/11?

The mural doesn't imply or say that, nor did I. But it does show that Saddam openly applauded the terrorists who killed 3000+ innocent people that day in an act of terrorism.

Another mural commemorating the event was found in a military heaquarters building: http://www.greatestjeneration.com/archives/001137.php

[gdnp]

If you can't effectively challenge the opponents facts, say this ...

Your "facts" have been effectively challenged before, by me and others. Microsoft Office gives a word count of 4271 for your last post. That's 8 1/2 single spaced pages. I'm guessing that is 15-20 times the length of the average post. I don't have time to read it, much less research and rebut all the half-truths, faulty logic, and misinformation. There may even be a few good points in there. Just not worth the effort. Sorry. :D

[UnrepentantSinner]

:rolleyes:

Do you really think the signers of that resolution on November 8th didn't understand what "severe consequences" meant ... given that at the time, the US was busy putting over a quarter million men and women on Iraq's borders, surrounding the country with thousands of armored vehicles and aircraft, and telling Saddam that an invasion was coming to free his people if he didn't get his act together where WMD and terrorism are concerned? They'd have had to be stupid not to understand that was the situation.

Here are excerpts from a speech given by the US President at the UN on September 2, 2002. http://www.c-span.org/executive/bushUN.asp



How could they not have known that "serious consequences" meant we'd invade and topple Saddam's regime? How could they not when on September 20, 2002, Bush announced the "Bush Doctrine", which called for unilateral preemptive American strikes on enemy nations found to be developing weapons of mass destruction. Before the invasion, we had good reason to suspect they were and the documents captured after the invasion prove they were.

How could they not know what "serious consequences" meant when this was the statement of the US representative to the UN prior to the vote: http://www.un.org/webcast/usa110802.htm



With language like that, how could ANYONE have thought "serious consequences" meant something other that our invading and deposing Saddam and his regime? Especially when America was busy assembling a force to do just that? Especially when we'd just invaded Afghanistan to topple the Taliban?



The French, Germans, Russians and Chinese were not honest brokers. And we had reason to suspect that then. We now know with certainty that many in those countries were indeed taking bribes from the Iraqi regime and had negotiated what would be very lucrative deals on oil and military equipment provided they could keep Saddam in power and eliminate the sanctions. The reality is that because of corruption in the UN staff and the leadership of some of the key Security Council members, the UN was an obstacle to resolving the Iraq situation. Had the US not acted, Saddam and his sons would have surely remained in power, the sanctions would have ended, oil would have flowed freely, Saddam would have rearmed, and the world would now be facing a resurgent Iraq collecting upwards of a 100 dollars a barrel ... enough to fund both army and WMD expansion. And terrorists would continue to have used his country as a safe haven. And likely a source of arms ... even WMD. And then what would you have us do? Besides join you under your blanket of denial?



:rolleyes:



The 2003 Coalition Of The Willing (those who openly supported invasion) consisted of 49 countries (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030327-10.html) with a combined population of over a billion people and a GDP of about $22 trillion. And 30 of those countries had populations over 5 million. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War , some 36 countries formed the coalition in 1991. Of those about 30 had a population over 5 million.

And it's worth noting that those 1991 thirty included Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria, which I don't think anyone could expect to have joined in the 2003 effort given the world's political situation at the time. It also included France, which we now know was closely tied to Saddam's regime. It helped him violate the sanctions, provided Iraq with pre-war intelligence, had negotiated multibillion dollar deals that would only come to fruition if Saddam stayed in power and the sanctions were removed, and had government and business officials being bribed through Saddam's oil vouchers program. Surely you didn't expect France under those circumstances would ever vote for the removal of Saddam by force?

In short, claiming that the coalition in 2003 was larger than that in 1991 is not insanity but clearly a fact.

Furthermore, note that the US government in 2003 said there were another 15 countries that materially supported the invasion effort but did not want their identity disclosed. That's not unlikely since countries like Israel would have certainly liked to see Saddam gone but wouldn't want to have inflamed regional opinions by publically joining the coalition. We now know that Taiwan quietly supported military action. Even Saudi Arabia might have been in that camp (it was learned after the invasion that they did indeed support it even if they publically said they didn't want any Coalition troops in their country). So there were possibly as many as 64 countries in the pro-invasion camp in March 2003.

Now according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governments'_pre-war_positions_on_invasion_of_Iraq , the following Governments said they were against the invasion before the 2003 war: France, Germany, Russia, Belgium, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Greece, Austria, Liechtenstein, Serbia, Czech Republic, Croatia, Slovenia, Finland, Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Chile (although Chili said it was likely they'd approve a UN war resolution if one had one been submitted), African Union (all 52 countries), China, India, Syria, the Arab League (with the exception of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia ... a total of 7 additional countries), Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, and New Zealand. That's an impressive total of 88 countries.

However, if we throw out all the countries with a population under five million in that list, the number becomes 58. And you might wonder about the motivations of some of those countries. Some (like France, Germany and Russia) had a hidden vested interest in supporting Saddam because of bribes, fear we'd discover they violated the sanctions, or because they might desire an outcome that would activate potentially lucrative contracts for oil and arms. Others we might as well classify as enemies of the US and West who would be against anything we wanted in the current WOT environment or because of the nature of their own government (like Syria, Libya, and Vietnam). Deleting those drops the number of countries with populations larger than a five million that were against the war to 52. And the number might actually be lower. Although Norway and Sweden were in this list, they actually were ambiguous in their statements and even provided material support to the war effort. Croatia and Slovenia both signed the Vilnius Group Statement in February of 2003 which said "we are prepared to contribute to an international coalition to enforce its provisions and the disarmament of Iraq. The clear and present danger posed by the Saddam Hussein's regime requires a united response from the community of democracies. We call upon the U.N. Security Council to take the necessary and appropriate action in response to Iraq's continuing threat to international peace and security."

And as pointed out in http://www.pwhce.org/willing.html#maps , every single country in the world that secured its freedom from totalitarianism in the 1990s supported the invasion. Maybe that should tell you something.

Let's take a closer look at Europe since I think the views of Europe are probably more important than those of Africa which contributed many of the countries in the list against invasion that had populations over 5 million (and under 5 million). http://www.pwhce.org/willing.html#maps show a map of the way various countries in Europe leaned in March 2003 regarding this matter. There were 19 in the Coalition Of The Willing. There were 7 openly opposed. There were 8 that were neutral or undeclared. And there were 4 that apparently gave ambiguous signals (for example, Sweden and Norway). And a year later, one can see that there were 20 countries still supporting the war effort, 8 countries against it, 7 countries neutral and 3 that were ambiguous. So Europe was actually on Bush's side in this matter.

And of the countries in Europe that opposed the invasion, France, Germany and Russia (the three largest) had materially aided Saddam just prior to the war, and had government officials and business leaders that were being bribed by Saddam's regime with cash and promises of lucrative contracts if Iraq got a clean bill of health from the inspectors (i.e., there was no invasion). So should they really count as being against invasion? Maybe they should have recused themselves from the matter at the UN?



And your side claims Sweden and Norway were against the invasion, and Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, ... yet we know that all 4 gave material aid to the invasion. Jordan even allowed us to operate from their country. :D



Perhaps you need to look at it regionally? http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/facts/gulfwar/ "The U.S. had more than 500,000 troops in the Persian Gulf War, while the non-U.S. coalition forces equaled roughly 160,000, or 24 percent, of all forces."

And you need to realize of those countries other than the US which provided troops in 1991, Egypt sent about 30,000, France about 14,000, Syria about 14,000, Morocco about 13,000, and Saudi Arabia about a 100,000. Most of the rest supplied relatively small numbers. Surely you don't really expect that Egypt, France, Syria, Morocco and Saudi Arabia would have contributed troops in 2003 under ANY circumstances given the political realities at the time? There was a WOT underway and all five have large muslim populations. And France and Syria had other reasons for not participating. If your thinking is an example of the sort of naivety we might expect from an Obama administration, perhaps we should rethink his qualifications for being President. :)



Did you ever consider that having lots of small countries providing troops actually complicates matters? Did you ever consider that we weren't facing the same type of enemy that we faced in 1991 and the plan for attacking the country was going to be quite different ... quite mobile ... and some countries might not actually be able to effectively support such an effort? Did you ever consider that the WOT might have made us somewhat reluctant (right or wrong) to have large numbers of islamic forces in the mix at that time? Look at what Turkey did, for example. And did we really need more troops, considering that our forces defeated Saddam's in record time and against the expectations of all those non-coalition nations and detractors? Remember how so many on the non-coalition side were saying we faced a lengthy campaign or were about to be blooded and defeated by Saddam's forces? Did we really need to add such "negative waves, Moriarity"?



And I bet the inspectors are glad they weren't around when Shock and Awe hit. :D



Lame. Really lame. If the Iraqis were actually cooperating with UN inspectors, you should be able to tell us what was in those trucks. We have Israelis, Syrians, US military personel, and even top level members of Saddam's regime telling us that those trucks contained WMD related items. Yet you just pull the blanket over your head and provide lame retorts when asked about that. Telling.



I never suggested that at all. But that mural does show in stunning detail where Saddam's allegiance was ... it does show that Saddam OPENLY supported the actions of the 9/11 terrorists. In fact, Saddam was the ONLY leader of a country in the world to openly APPLAUD the 9/11 attack and the murder of over 3000 innocent people. Why did he do that? Well perhaps those captured audio tapes that you ignore tell us the reason. Because Saddam and his staff still considered themselves at war with the United States despite a cease fire agreement that your side claims ended that war.



Is comprehension and simple logic a problem for you? We knew before the war that al-Zarqawi was in Iraq ... in Baghdad ... meeting with terrorists to plot attacks against us. Al-Zarqawi had already been tried and convicted (in absentia) in Jordan for the murder of a US diplomat (a plot hatched in Baghdad) and there were indications he was involved with al-Qaeda. Afterall, he'd been in Afghanistan when we attacked.

Long before the invasion, Jordan and the US told Saddam that al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad and asked Iraq to turn him over to us. That request was ignored. The significance of the Jordan Bombing case is that it proves the administration was correct. Al-Qaeda was using Iraq as a staging area for attacks against the West. Al-Zarqawi was working with al-Qaeda BEFORE the invasion. And that he did it from Baghdad. Just like the administration claimed.



And if matters had been left up to the likes of you, tens of thousands of innocent Jordanians and everyone in the US embassy in Jordan would now be dead. And in the intervening 5 years, al-Qaeda in Iraq might have launched half a dozen similar attacks ... perhaps some even involving WMD, courtesy of Saddam. Of course, Saddam would deny his involvement and then what would you do? :rolleyes:



Bush never claimed that Iraq was an "imminent" danger in 2003.



Then explain the still viable binary sarin shell that turned up as an IED after the invasion? For starters.

But I think you prove my point that your side claims with 100% certainty something for which there has to be considerable doubt considering all the facts now known. You can't tell us the contents of those trucks. You can't explain the eyewitness statements that the contents of those trucks were buried in Syria right before the war. You can't tell us why Saddam built bunkers under a river in 2002 ... bunkers that the US government investigator who found them shortly after the invasion said were believed to contain WMD according to the locals in the area. You can't tell us what was in them since in 2006 when the CIA finally got around to looking at them, they said they'd been looted. You can't tell us why Saddam's regime sanitized files, computers and facilities the ISG still believes were connected to WMD. Does your certainty make you liars like your side claims Bush to be just because he expressed certainty about things for which there was some doubt?



Then explain the documents found after the invasion that show Saddam's regime knew al-Qaeda were in Iraq yet didn't seem to do anything effective about that. Explain the documents that show they caught a known associate of al-Zarqawi, an associate the capturing officer was convinced was guilty of crimes against Iraq, and who Saddam personally ordered be released. Explain the documents which show Iraq warned the Taliban and al-Qaeda that the US was about attack. And if you don't think they were supportive of al-Qaeda, then explain the mural and Saddam's open congratulation of them for their attack on 9/11.



And that view is why you will be one of the first to go if islamofanatics win this struggle we are now engaged in worldwide. A struggle you seem to want to ignore. ;)



What was that about "pouting"? I'm not going to go around and around in circles with you. Our readers can make up their own minds about this based on the facts that have been presented. :D



Japan didn't contribute any troops at all in 1991. And Iraq was a dangerous place after the fall of Baghdad. You need to understand that for Japan, given what it's constitution says, sending even one soldier was a major show of support. But then I guess your side just isn't going to be appreciative of America's allies. If you have your way, before long we'll be standing alone.



Actually, you don't speak for all those families. In fact, I think it's a safe bet that your side of this debate doesn't speak for the vast majority of those families. Because they want to see things through to a successful conclusion in Iraq ... so their loved ones will not have died in vain ... rather than cut and run as Obama says we should do now ... even as things turn very promising.



Iraq was already unstable before we invaded. And that instability ... that lack of control it had on its WMD activities and arsenal ... and the lack of willingness to do anything about the terrorists operating within the country ... is what made it so very, very dangerous. Iraq was not only allowing terrorists to remain and operate from the country, it was actively training terrorists. It's odd how those on your side of this debate don't grasp that.



Here we have another example of that certainty your side displays. If this is the cavalier way that Obama will treat potential threats to America (and he's doing it with Iran now), then Obama is not the right person for the job. At least Hillary understood some of the danger in ignoring enemies, even if she was gaming things to maintain political power and line her purse.



No, as I noted earlier, in the region around Iraq involved in the conflict, US forces constituted roughly 75% of the forces in 1991. And many of the 1991 countries would not have been reliable in the 2003 political situation. The WOT changed many things.



I'm puzzled. Your linked web page shows we supplied 697,000 troops out of a total of 956,600. Now 697000 divided by 956,600 is almost 73% not 54%. :D

Nothing to add but I love hoping on the "quote a giant post and reply with a one liner" bandwagon.

[BeAChooser]

Nothing to add but I love hoping on the "quote a giant post and reply with a one liner" bandwagon.

My guess is that gdnp couldn't handle the fact that 697000 divided by 956,600 is 73%, not 54%. :D

[gdnp]

My guess is that gdnp couldn't handle the fact that 697000 divided by 956,600 is 73%, not 54%. :D

Sorry, you have the wrong guy. I was not involved in your little math debate. 73% or 54%, still 100% drivel. :)

[boloboffin]

Yes, I should admit that I grabbed the wrong figure. The site I linked to showed overall numbers for the entire operation, not just the invasion force. However you do the math, the US contributed a lot more troops in 1991 and made up a lot less of the percentage of invasion troops than in 2003. BAC is pretending that the 1991 force, consisting of far more troops, is smaller than the 2003 one. Bush the father built a coalition. Bush the son did window dressing.

[BeAChooser]

BAC is pretending that the 1991 force, consisting of far more troops, is smaller than the 2003 one.

This is false. I've never suggested there were more troops involved in the 2003 conflict than in the 1991 one.

Bush the father built a coalition. Bush the son did window dressing.

In both conflicts, the percentage of US troops involved in the conflict (and you don't have to actually enter Iraq to have been involved) was about the same ... 75%. The number of countries in the coalitions was roughly the same. And of those countries supplying most of the non-US troops in 1991, no rational person could expect that those countries would have joined the 2003 coalition under any conditions and supplied troops. Because they either had a hidden interest in not seeing Saddam actually toppled or because the situation vis a vis islamic countries changed on 9/11. For example, some of those countries aren't even on our side in the WOT and their troops might be more liability than help in that case.