Inspector Says Iraqis Will Reveal Weapons Program

[Nie Trink Wasser]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/iraq/cst-nws-wmd01.html


WASHINGTON--The United States has found evidence of an active program to make weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, including "truly amazing" testimony from Iraqis ordered to dupe UN inspectors before the war, the man leading the hunt said Thursday.

David Kay, a former United Nations inspector who is joint head of the Iraq Survey Group, offered an unprecedentedly optimistic assessment of the hunt for weapons of mass destruction.

Although he called for patience, he predicted that doubters were in for a "surprise" by the time his work was done.

His 1,400-strong team of American, British and Australian experts now scouring Iraq has not yet found actual biological or chemical weapons, Kay told private Senate hearings.

But there was mounting evidence of an active WMD program, he said.

That evidence included documents detailing how to conceal arms plants as commercial facilities, and for restarting weapons production once the coast was clear, officials told reporters.

Leading Democratic lawmakers have questioned pre-war claims made by President Bush about Saddam Hussein's weapons capacities.

The Senate Intelligence Committee's top Democrat, Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, expressed concern that the searches are being diverted away from finding actual weapons.

''Signs of a weapons program are very different than the stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons that were a certainty before the war,'' Rockefeller said. ''We did not go to war to disrupt Saddam's weapons program, we went to disarm him.''

''It's looking more and more like a case of mass deception,'' Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said after Kay briefed the Senate Armed Services Committee. ''There was no imminent danger and we should never have gone to war.''

Kay appeared to want to stem the growing perception that Saddam may have had no weapons program at all.

[rikzilla]

The last word, will be the definitive word in the Iraqi WMD debate.

That word has obviously not been written yet.

Stay tuned.

-z

[Martin]

Translation: We haven't actually found anything, but just you wait. You'll see. No, really. Honestly. Trust us. Please?

[Jon_in_london]

Yes, Im sure there are some invisible pink unicorns hidden in Iraq too. They just havent been found yet.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Martinm
Translation: We haven't actually found anything, but just you wait. You'll see. No, really. Honestly. Trust us. Please?


wow. that's hilarious. stop me from laughing. help it hurts so, because im laughing so hard. so hard Im laughing at the wit. har har.

the funny part will be when you wont be able to admit you were wrong.

[Crossbow]

That article provides some good information and there are two sentences in particular that I find most illuminating:

...

His 1,400-strong team of American, British and Australian experts now scouring Iraq has not yet found actual biological or chemical weapons, Kay told private Senate hearings.

But there was mounting evidence of an active WMD program, he said.

That evidence included documents detailing how to conceal arms plants as commercial facilities, and for restarting weapons production once the coast was clear, officials told reporters.

...


Oooh! So that is what the war was all about! The need to find some documents about how to make WMDs as opposed to actually having WMDs or even having the actual hardware to make WMDs, it was all about the paper. So I guess when Cheney spoke of Iraq having "reconstituted nuclear weapons" what he really meant that Iraq has some documents about how to build nuclear weapons (of course one must throw in the usual pro-war caveat that Cheney was not actually under oath when he said that therefore it cannot be considered a lie).

But anyway, let me see about applying some high-power mathematics to this data: I would estimate that there is something like 100,000 pages of these documents and the war has cost over $ 100 billion (so far), therefore we paid about $ 1,000,000 page. Of course that does not include the tens of thousands of war causalities.

Holy cow! That has to be some kind of record.

Anyway, at those kinds of prices we could have probably paid off some filing clerks about $ 100/page to get copies of the documents which would have been much cheaper, and far less bloodier, than a shooting war.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Crossbow
That article provides some good information and there are two sentences in particular that I find most illuminating:

...

His 1,400-strong team of American, British and Australian experts now scouring Iraq has not yet found actual biological or chemical weapons, Kay told private Senate hearings.

But there was mounting evidence of an active WMD program, he said.

That evidence included documents detailing how to conceal arms plants as commercial facilities, and for restarting weapons production once the coast was clear, officials told reporters.

...



Oooh! So that is what the war was all about! The need to find some documents about how to make WMDs as opposed to actually having WMDs or even having the actual hardware to make WMDs, it was all about the paper. So I guess when Cheney spoke of Iraq having "reconstituted nuclear weapons" what he really meant that Iraq has some documents about how to build nuclear weapons (of course one must throw in the usual pro-war caveat that Cheney was not actually under oath when he said that therefore it cannot be considered a lie).

But anyway, let me see about applying some high-power mathematics to this data: I would estimate that there is something like 100,000 pages of these documents and the war has cost over $ 100 billion (so far), therefore we paid about $ 1,000,000 page. Of course that does not include the tens of thousands of war causalities.

Holy cow! That has to be some kind of record.

Anyway, at those kinds of prices we could have probably paid off some filing clerks about $ 100/page to get copies of the documents which would have been much cheaper, and far less bloodier, than a shooting war.



maybe you should consider that you're minimizing the murder of all of those people by Saddam's chemical weapons and maybe you should consider why Clinton bombed Iraq.

war is okay when a democrat is in office eh ?

[Suddenly]

That evidence included documents detailing how to conceal arms plants as commercial facilities, and for restarting weapons production once the coast was clear, officials told reporters.

In other words, the inspections were working.

I trusted the administration when it said that Iraq posed an imminent danger. I supported the war on that grounds. However, shifting the target from "imminent danger" to "they could have become a danger" just isn't going to cut it. The implied bargain was that if I trusted them, they would justify that trust by coming up with a stockpile of WMDs. Hasn't happened, and this type of target shifting makes me more skeptical that they ever will.

I just didn't believe they would lie about something so important. I hope I was right, but I am not going to let my hopes, fears or patriotism cloud my judgment. Ignoring the misdeeds of those in power is closer to treason than patriotism.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Suddenly
[B]

In other words, the inspections were working.




wrong

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Suddenly


In other words, the inspections were working.

I trusted the administration when it said that Iraq posed an imminent danger. I supported the war on that grounds. However, shifting the target from "imminent danger" to "they could have become a danger" just isn't going to cut it. The implied bargain was that if I trusted them, they would justify that trust by coming up with a stockpile of WMDs. Hasn't happened, and this type of target shifting makes me more skeptical that they ever will.

I just didn't believe they would lie about something so important. I hope I was right, but I am not going to let my hopes, fears or patriotism cloud my judgment. Ignoring the misdeeds of those in power is closer to treason than patriotism.

Does this mean that you would be for a regime of never-ending sanctions that have "worked" to contain Saddam and limit his ability to crank up his WMD production? Before you answer though, remember that these sanctions also have caused much suffering, as well as approx 17,000 deaths per year since they began. Also, the regime brutally murdered even more individuals per year during this time.

You cannot be "for" non-intervention while being "against" sanctions. Why? For non-intervention to work Saddam must be contained. Containment = sanctions.

So basically you are saying that as long as Saddam is no threat to you, you don't care how many Iraqis suffer and die, or for how long. That's compassion! :rolleyes:
The mantra of the "compassionate democrats"; "Let the sanctions/inspections work!" = "Let the Iraqi people die."


-z

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser



wrong

Thank you for your well reasoned response. I return to the world a much greater and wiser person having been exposed to your brilliance.

If they were halting production until "the coast was clear," and no stockpiled weapons were found, I though that meant there were no weapons or plans to develop same as long as "the coast wasn't clear," that the UN was still inspecting under threat of war. I then reasoned that they were not an immediate threat and it might have been wise to wait a while and get greated support before launching an invasion.

Your dazzling response has made me see the light however. Thank you.

[Frostbite]

Hey Nie, could you change your avatar? It's making my skin crawl and my stomach produce mass quantities of acid. Thank you.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Suddenly


Thank you for your well reasoned response. I return to the world a much greater and wiser person having been exposed to your brilliance.

If they were halting production until "the coast was clear," and no stockpiled weapons were found, I though that meant there were no weapons or plans to develop same as long as "the coast wasn't clear," that the UN was still inspecting under threat of war. I then reasoned that they were not an immediate threat and it might have been wise to wait a while and get greated support before launching an invasion.

Your dazzling response has made me see the light however. Thank you.


I said you were wrong and I had faith rik would show up and he did.

Apologies for the short and sweet, but I can't waste a lot of time right now.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Frostbite
Hey Nie, could you change your avatar? It's making my skin crawl and my stomach produce mass quantities of acid. Thank you.



it's good for digestion.



:clap:

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser



maybe you should consider that you're minimizing the murder of all of those people by Saddam's chemical weapons and maybe you should consider why Clinton bombed Iraq.

war is okay when a democrat is in office eh ?

Boy you make some irrelevant points.

So are you telling me that the 2003 war was due to the time when Iraq used chemical weapons in 1981? Sorry, but waging a war for something that happened to group that we were not allies with, or even cared that much about quite frankly (I doubt that Reagan even knew anything about the Kurds before he got into office), over 20 years ago is not a valid reason for going to war.

Yes, when Clinton bombed Iraq there was a good reason for it. If you will recall that was a reaction to an assassination attempt on a former president that occurred just a few weeks before.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Frostbite
Hey Nie, could you change your avatar? It's making my skin crawl and my stomach produce mass quantities of acid. Thank you.

Well, I think she's lovely! Hell, I bet she's such a nice girl, she' even date American! :D :D :D

Sorry...for the diversion.....

.........we now return to our regularly scheduled thread.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Does this mean that you would be for a regime of never-ending sanctions that have "worked" to contain Saddam and limit his ability to crank up his WMD production? Before you answer though, remember that these sanctions also have caused much suffering, as well as approx 17,000 deaths per year since they began. Also, the regime brutally murdered even more individuals per year during this time.

The crimes of the Iraqi regime are not relevent to my point. There are many reasons on which to justify an invasion and occupation. If we would have just said "we are invading because they are an evil menace and Saddam just needs killing, plus as a realpolitik measure we could use a non-Saudi base in the mid-east" I'd have been all for it. The world is a rough place. I'm more concerned with lies.

You cannot be "for" non-intervention while being "against" sanctions. Why? For non-intervention to work Saddam must be contained. Containment = sanctions.

How about no sanctions, but inspections with the penalty of war for violation? War was likely inevitable, but the story of immediate danger caused us to move too fast and without allies. I'm not a big fan of the UN, but reality dictates that having them on our side makes things easier.

So basically you are saying that as long as Saddam is no threat to you, you don't care how many Iraqis suffer and die, or for how long. That's compassion! :rolleyes:
The mantra of the "compassionate democrats";"Let the sanctions/inspections work!" = "Let the Iraqi people die."



Strawman. As I stated above I'm all for an invasion on humanitarian principles. I just wonder if that means we have to invade every country that mistreats its people. As a matter of pragmatism, I believe a threat to America takes military precidence over threats to non-Americans. Perhaps you believe otherwise, and I respect that belief.







-z [/B]

(edited to remove a stray piece of irrelevant text)

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
http://www.suntimes.com/output/iraq/cst-nws-wmd01.html
...

His 1,400-strong team of American, British and Australian experts now scouring Iraq has not yet found actual biological or chemical weapons, Kay told private Senate hearings.

But there was mounting evidence of an active WMD program, he said.

Leading Democratic lawmakers have questioned pre-war claims made by President Bush about Saddam Hussein's weapons capacities.

The Senate Intelligence Committee's top Democrat, Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, expressed concern that the searches are being diverted away from finding actual weapons.

''Signs of a weapons program are very different than the stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons that were a certainty before the war,'' Rockefeller said. ''We did not go to war to disrupt Saddam's weapons program, we went to disarm him.''

''It's looking more and more like a case of mass deception,'' Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said after Kay briefed the Senate Armed Services Committee. ''There was no imminent danger and we should never have gone to war.''


Note that the Bush apologists continue to squirm, and cannot face the Iraq war issues head on.

As to the existence of WMD: none found, but (maybe) Saddam had a weapons "program". (Not exactly the same, is it?)

As to the rationale for war: WMDs were not the only reason to invade Iraq (it was a major reason for most war supporters, as Saddam's repressive government had never been much of an issue over the previous 25 years).

As to the benefit to the Iraqi people of having Saddam removed: The ends justify the means (i.e. the lies).

If you support the war, please address the issues directly. This thread states clearly that 1400 inspectors have been unable to locate a single WMD in over 3 months of looking.

[Charlie Monoxide]

Wasn't the "fact" that Iraq had the "potential" ability to create WMD one of the big reasons GWB invaded Iraq? Can GWB not use that arugument with ANY countries he chooses to invade?

Take Canada for example; lots of uranium, lots of nuclear reactors, lots of skilled scientists and engineers. I'm sure Canada could develop an nulclear WMD in say, one or two years. Perhaps GWB should do a pre-emptive raid on Canada. IN fact, he should do it right now since 4000 (probably half of Canada's army) Canadian troops are over in Afghanistan right now helping to clean up the mess there.

Charlie (blame Canada) Monoxide

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Does this mean that you would be for a regime of never-ending sanctions that have "worked" to contain Saddam and limit his ability to crank up his WMD production? Before you answer though, remember that these sanctions also have caused much suffering, as well as approx 17,000 deaths per year since they began. Also, the regime brutally murdered even more individuals per year during this time.

You cannot be "for" non-intervention while being "against" sanctions. Why? For non-intervention to work Saddam must be contained. Containment = sanctions.

So basically you are saying that as long as Saddam is no threat to you, you don't care how many Iraqis suffer and die, or for how long. That's compassion! :rolleyes:
The mantra of the "compassionate democrats"; "Let the sanctions/inspections work!" = "Let the Iraqi people die."


-z

Boy, every time someone posts a figure regarding how many Iraqis were killed by sanctions it is always a different figure. Somebody else recently told me that the sanctions killed 25,000 Iraqis every month and at one point, Saddam blamed every single death that every occurred in Iraq on the sanctions.

Anyway, in all fairness the sanctions did kill some Iraqis, however because Iraq was such a police state the real killer was not the sanctions but Saddam. The sanctions were felt most strongly by those that opposed Saddam whereas those that supported him, actually reaped great benefits from them (a case of playing both ends against the middle). In any case, humanitarian arguments were not used to justify the war before it started, however they are being trotted out now after the war is over and after it has been shown that Iraq did not have WMDs, Iraq was not making WMDs, and that there were no substantive links between Iraq and terrorists.

If the USA is going to make it a policy to invade brutal police states, then I may support such a policy however that has not been done.

[Agammamon]

Let me point out again that we went in because of the existence of WMD not WMD programs (or programmes if you prefer).

On the other hand, something that makes the lack of WMD evidence a smidgen more understandable is that we've recently found 30 jets buried in the sand near the base they were from. So I suppose that it makes the claim that there hasn't been enough time to search completely a little more plausible.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Yes, when Clinton bombed Iraq there was a good reason for it. If you will recall that was a reaction to an assassination attempt on a former president that occurred just a few weeks before. [/B]


i can't believe people take you seriously.


"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for . . . it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks . . . " said Clinton recently on "Larry King Live." Also, Clinton said he never found out whether a U.S.-British bombing campaign he ordered in 1998 ended Saddam's stockpiles of or his capability of producing chemical and biological weapons. "We might have gotten it all, we might have gotten half of it, we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know," said Clinton.

Clinton said, "The White House said . . . that on balance they probably shouldn't have put that comment in the speech. What happened, often happens. There was a disagreement between British intelligence and American intelligence. The president said it was British intelligence that said it. . . . British intelligence still maintain that they think the nuclear story was true. I don't know what was true, what was false. . . . Here's what happens: every day the president gets a daily brief from the CIA. And then, if it's some important issue -- and believe me, you know, anything having to do with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons became much more important to everybody in the White House after September the 11th -- then they probably told the president, certainly Condoleezza Rice, that this is what the British intelligence thought."





Why does Clinton, a consistent and persistent critic of this administration, suddenly leap to Bush's defense?

Clinton's motives? Check out the just-released Joint Congressional Committee report on 9-11. Under Clinton's watch, the Committee reports how intelligence apparatus failed to connect the dots. Yes, lapses occurred under the current president, but Clinton missed numerous opportunities to focus on the growing terror threat, including opportunities to get Osama bin Laden. Clinton knows that constant browbeating over the alleged lack of Iraqi "imminence" and of Bush's "security failures" serves only to make Clinton's presidency look bad. If anything, the "imminent threat" loomed during Clinton's administration, and he knows he took insufficient action to quell it.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Suddenly
The crimes of the Iraqi regime are not relevent to my point. There are many reasons on which to justify an invasion and occupation. If we would have just said "we are invading because they are an evil menace and Saddam just needs killing, plus as a realpolitik measure we could use a non-Saudi base in the mid-east" I'd have been all for it. The world is a rough place. I'm more concerned with lies.

I understand. You are right, there were many reasons. I also would be concerned about lies. But a lie is a deliberate untruth spoken in order to decieve. Bush may have gotten bad advice, and he may have believed bad intelligence. I find that the evidence does not rise to the level of a lie, unless I see evidence that he knew in advance that the situation was not as he was characterizing it. If I may further illustrate what I mean by a bald faced lie, I give this example from Nixon's second speech to the nation about Watergate: "On May 22, I stated in very specific terms—and I state again to every one of you listening tonight these facts—I had no prior knowledge of the Watergate break-in; I neither took part in nor knew about any of the subsequent coverup activities; I neither authorized nor encouraged subordinates to engage in illegal or improper campaign tactics.

(Please note that a certain president whose name starts with a C and ends with an N, and whose lies were even more obvious,.. was not used!) ;)



How about no sanctions, but inspections with the penalty of war for violation? War was likely inevitable, but the story of immediate danger caused us to move too fast and without allies. I'm not a big fan of the UN, but reality dictates that having them on our side makes things easier.

I think there were 16 or 17 violated UN resolutions over 11 years that were supposed to have that effect.

Strawman. As I stated above I'm all for an invasion on humanitarian principles. I just wonder if that means we have to invade every country that mistreats its people. As a matter of pragmatism, I believe a threat to America takes military precidence over threats to non-Americans. Perhaps you believe otherwise, and I respect that belief.

No, I share your position,...but Iraq was a situation where we won a war, and thought sanctions and post-war conditions would topple Saddam or force him to moderate like Qaddafiy in Libya. After 11 years we knew that not only were we wrong, but that our imposition of sanctions in place of an earlier invasion and removal of Saddam (as we should have done) meant that much of the death and suffering in Iraq was because of the decision we made not to remove Saddam after Gulf War I. In other words, the terrible conditions in Iraq were, in part, our fault.

So, no...the US does not need to run around the world saving all the people who suffer under outlaw regimes...but since this was largely our fault for not removing Saddam in the first place, it was essential that we acted. Add to that moral obligation the mistaken intelligence about stockpiles of WMD and a picture emerges of a situation that we could not allow to continue.

-zilla

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Boy, every time someone posts a figure regarding how many Iraqis were killed by sanctions it is always a different figure. Somebody else recently told me that the sanctions killed 25,000 Iraqis every month and at one point, Saddam blamed every single death that every occurred in Iraq on the sanctions.

Anyway, in all fairness the sanctions did kill some Iraqis, however because Iraq was such a police state the real killer was not the sanctions but Saddam. The sanctions were felt most strongly by those that opposed Saddam whereas those that supported him, actually reaped great benefits from them (a case of playing both ends against the middle). In any case, humanitarian arguments were not used to justify the war before it started, however they are being trotted out now after the war is over and after it has been shown that Iraq did not have WMDs, Iraq was not making WMDs, and that there were no substantive links between Iraq and terrorists.

If the USA is going to make it a policy to invade brutal police states, then I may support such a policy however that has not been done.

Humanitarian arguments may not have been made, however this does not mean that there was no humanitarian argument at all.

I remember that in my old thread about res 687, Dr. X posted this in answer to the sanctions death toll question:


You might find this all interesting from Pollack's book:

How Many Iraqis Have Died Since 1991?

Unfortunately, the answer is: we just don't know. . . . That said, there are a number of things that we do know and that are worth saying.

First, however many people have died, the numbers that the Iraqui regime is disseminating--and that many well-meaning people and even U.N. agencies are recirculating--are clearly wrong.[1] Iraq's claims are grossly contradicted by the regime's own demographic data. In 1997, the Iraqi regime conducted a census, and two years later it. . . . . . . stated that Iraq's population had increased from 16.5 million in 1987 to 22 million in 1997. Baghdad also claimed that had it not been for the U.N. sanctions, the population figure would have been 23.5 million but that 1.5 million people (1 million of them children) had died prematurely as a result of sanctions. Although this was the headline of the census, all of the other numbers in it controverted this lurid claim. The census figures indicate a population growth rate of 33 percent over ten years, a very high rate . . . by itself. If one were to add back the 1.5 million . . . (and the 500,000 who fled the country. . .), it would produce a ten-year growth rate of 45 percent--which is phenomenal and would have put Iraq among the fastest-growing populations in the world. However, Iraq was not know to be one of the fastest-growing populations in the world prior to the Gulf War. . . .

Amatzia Baram has demonstrated that the Iraqi figures themselves belie the assertions of the regime. . . . [T]he census figures show Iraqi population growth rates remaining stable over the last thirty years, and the decrease in population growth rates the regime claims was produced by the sanctions would not have been big enough to create the actual population increase had 1.5 million people already died. Thus, the census figures for population growth by themselves indicate that the Iraqi claims as to deaths from sanctions are significantly inflated. [2] To explain this discrepancy, Baghdad claims that there was a quantum leap in Iraq's birthrate in 1991-97, which not only offset the deaths but produced the growth. Interestingly, the census does not present any data to support this contention. . . . According to unofficial U.N. statistics, Iraq's birthrate continued to decline right through 1997. . . .

If the ludicrous assertions of the Iraqi regime are clearly false, it still leaves unanswered the question of how many Iraqis truly died. Unfortunately, all we have is a good guess. At present, the most comprehensive, thorough, and sensitive analysis has been conducted by Richard Garfield of Columbia University. Gardfield's research was exhaustive, and his methodology is the current gold standard. based on this work, Garfield concluded that between August 1990 and March 1998, anywhere from 106,000 to 227,000 Iraqi children under the age of five died as a rsult of the war, the intifadah [Various uprisings against Sadam which Sadam conducted punitive reprisals targeting women and children.--Ed.], and its aftermath. . . . [T]he number is probably closer to the high end . . . but . . . roughly 25 percent of those who died were killed during the Gulf War and the intifadah. [3] Since Garfield also estimates that 1,000 to 5,000 Iraqi civilians died during the Gulf War, the vast majority of the children under the age of five killed in combate were therefore probably killed in the intifadah--an estimate that squares with the numerous accounts of the brutality of Saddam's forces and their slaughter of women and children in suppressing the revolt. [4]

So the best estimate we have is that roughly 135,000 to 150,000 Iraqi children died in the first seven years after the war. . . . Regardless of whether one blames these deaths mostly on the sanctions or mostly on the regime's manipulation of and reaction to the sanctions, this is still a very heavy cost. Given that the Gulf War itself probably caused no more than 10,000 to 30,000 Iraqi military casualties and another 1,000 to 5,000 civilian casualties, it raises the question of whether full-scale combat is a more humane policy than draconian sanctions.

Pollack, KM. The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq. New York: Random House, Inc., 2002, pp. 137-139.

References Cited in Book:

1. For World Health Organization, UNICEF, and the UN FAO repeating or arbitrarily modifying Iraq's made-up numbers, see Cockburn and Cockburn, Out of the Ashes, P. 137; Hiro, Neighbors, Not Friends, pp. 129, 177.

2-3. Baram, "The Effects of Iraqi Sanctions," pp. 195-198.

4. Garfield, "Executive Summary," pp. 1-2.



Damn, I sure miss Dr. X. :(

-z

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Crossbow
I would estimate that there is something like 100,000 pages of these documents and the war has cost over $ 100 billion (so far), therefore we paid about $ 1,000,000 page. Of course that does not include the tens of thousands of war causalities.

Our evil plot has been discovered!! :eek:

It's all about paper!! :jaw:


:rolleyes: :rolleyes:




"What price freedom?"...

[Suddenly]

I also would be concerned about lies. But a lie is a deliberate untruth spoken in order to decieve. Bush may have gotten bad advice, and he may have believed bad intelligence. I find that the evidence does not rise to the level of a lie, unless I see evidence that he knew in advance that the situation was not as he was characterizing it.

I would agree that it is far from clear that the administration is lying, at least so far. I hope it turns out they are not. However, analogous to your point (which is well taken) that we have some special duty to Iraq because of the Gulf War, isn't also true that Bush has a similar special duty to the people of America when it comes to honesty?

The main beef with Clinton was that he made statements, than later, when those statements appeared to be falsehoods, he tortured the language to find a shread of ambiguity to show he had not had told an outright lie. Oral sex not being sex, agonizing over the definition of "is", etc. The subtext of Bush's 2000 campaign was that he would neither have sex in the oval office nor would he engage in that kind of doublespeak when dealing with the people.

Ergo, I am less concerned with the precise text of the administration's comments on WMD as I am with the message those comments were intended to convey. As you posted earlier, the last word on this has not been spoken. I have no strong feelings either way, but I am willing, if the evidence suggests it, to conclude that Bush et. al. mislead the people into supporting a war. That there are other justifiable reasons for war mitigates this misdeed somewhat, but saying it makes the misdeed irrelevant is equal to suggesting Clinton's alleged false statement under oath is irrelevent because it pertained to a unimportant matter.

Just as an aside, I am not a big apologist for Clinton. During the impeachment I took the part of the "House" in a mock impeachment trial at WVU Law School and got a conviction from a mock "Senate" that trended 70% Democrat. I'm not really a Democrat or Republican, rather I'm pretty much against whoever is in office. I'm registered as a Democrat, as in rural W.Va. that is simply saying "I'd like to vote in local elections," as we have closed primaries and the Democrat wins most local elections unopposed.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Our evil plot has been discovered!! :eek:

It's all about paper!! :jaw:


:rolleyes: :rolleyes:




"What price freedom?"...

Apparently so since no WMDs have been found, nor any WMD programs, nor any real links to terrorism, but we have found lots of paper!

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser



i can't believe people take you seriously.


"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for . . . it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks . . . " said Clinton recently on "Larry King Live." Also, Clinton said he never found out whether a U.S.-British bombing campaign he ordered in 1998 ended Saddam's stockpiles of or his capability of producing chemical and biological weapons. "We might have gotten it all, we might have gotten half of it, we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know," said Clinton.

Clinton said, "The White House said . . . that on balance they probably shouldn't have put that comment in the speech. What happened, often happens. There was a disagreement between British intelligence and American intelligence. The president said it was British intelligence that said it. . . . British intelligence still maintain that they think the nuclear story was true. I don't know what was true, what was false. . . . Here's what happens: every day the president gets a daily brief from the CIA. And then, if it's some important issue -- and believe me, you know, anything having to do with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons became much more important to everybody in the White House after September the 11th -- then they probably told the president, certainly Condoleezza Rice, that this is what the British intelligence thought."





Why does Clinton, a consistent and persistent critic of this administration, suddenly leap to Bush's defense?

Clinton's motives? Check out the just-released Joint Congressional Committee report on 9-11. Under Clinton's watch, the Committee reports how intelligence apparatus failed to connect the dots. Yes, lapses occurred under the current president, but Clinton missed numerous opportunities to focus on the growing terror threat, including opportunities to get Osama bin Laden. Clinton knows that constant browbeating over the alleged lack of Iraqi "imminence" and of Bush's "security failures" serves only to make Clinton's presidency look bad. If anything, the "imminent threat" loomed during Clinton's administration, and he knows he took insufficient action to quell it.





And I can't believe that you take yourself seriously.

I have been looking at the Congressional 9-11 report (I got it a couple of days ago) and it has very little to say about Iraq and its links to terrorism but it does say a fair bit of how the terrorist organization functions, the threat posed, and the USA response. On pages 5 and 6 of the REPORT OF THE JOINT INQUIRY INTO THE TERRORIST ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 – BY THE HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE AND THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE

..

December 1998, George Tenet, the Director of Central Intelligence, gave a chilling
direction to his deputies at the CIA:

We must now enter a new phase in our effort against Bin Ladin. . .
. We are at war. . . . I want no resources or people spared in this
effort, either inside the CIA or the Community.

Discovering and disrupting al-Qa’ida’s plans proved exceptionally difficult,
however. Details of major terrorist plots were not widely shared within the al-Qa’ida
organization, making it hard to develop the intelligence necessary to preempt or disrupt
attacks. Senior al-Qa’ida officials were sensitive to operational security, and many al-Qa'ida
members enjoyed sanctuary in Afghanistan, where they could safely plan and train
for their missions. Finally, senior members of al-Qa'ida were skilled and purposeful: they
learned from their mistakes and were flexible in organization and planning.

...
As for what Clinton has been saying, I would remind you that in almost every case past presidents will publicly support the actions of the current president. If they are consulted in private, then it is quite likely that they will have a good bit more to say, but when the press is looking on they will support whoever is holding the keys to the office. Furthermore, if you will actually pay attention to the whole interview, and not just the parts that you find supportive, you will see where Clinton wanted to see the inspection process continue, to wit:

"So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say, 'You got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.'"

Finally, if you would pay attention to what you are posting and what others are posting you will see that no one has denied that at some point Iraq did have chemical and biological weapons, they may well have been trying to build an atomic bomb, and that Iraq could be a serious threat.

[Crossbow]

Bump!

Considering what has not been not been found in Iraq, I thought that now would be a good time recall some of those pro-war arguments and justifications.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser



wow. that's hilarious. stop me from laughing. help it hurts so, because im laughing so hard. so hard Im laughing at the wit. har har.

the funny part will be when you wont be able to admit you were wrong.

I admit. I was wrong. Thank god we discovered the 10 billion litres of active chemical weapons in time. And who knew that Iraq had all those ICBM's ready to go? To think how close we came to disaster.

PS: Sinister W! :roll:

[CapelDodger]

From Suddenly:
As a matter of pragmatism, I believe a threat to America takes military precidence over threats to non-Americans. Perhaps you believe otherwise, and I respect that belief.
Just for the record, I believe otherwise.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
From Suddenly:

Just for the record, I believe otherwise.

Bloody Taffs.

[CapelDodger]

From Suddenly:
would agree that it is far from clear that the administration is lying, at least so far. I hope it turns out they are not. However, analogous to your point (which is well taken) that we have some special duty to Iraq because of the Gulf War, isn't also true that Bush has a similar special duty to the people of America when it comes to honesty?
To me the crucial point is the way that the US and British governments saw the war (already decided on) as a PR issue. War shouldn't have to be "sold" to the public, but the Hutton enquiry in Britain is revealing the way that, at least over here, this was done as a matter of course. People who are, I'm sure, perfectly decent did this without batting an eyelid. I'm sure the same was true in the US. The real problem that is revealed is the attitude of the governors of these nations, and the gulf that exists between them and the governed.

If giving up on sanctions and removing Saddam's regime was the aim of the war it should have been presented - and argued for - on that basis. It wasn't. If that reasoning led to the raising of other such regimes - say, Zimbabwe - well, point out why they can't be dealt with yet . The US army is stretched enough as it is, but the principle woud have been established. A new element would have been introduced to certain people's thinking. Currently Zimbabwe can rest easy because nobody's credibly accused them of having a WMD program (although for all we know they've inherited the Rhodesian/Boer biological and chemical programs).

[CapelDodger]

From Mr Manifesto:
Bloody Taffs.
The ****-list just got longer. Avoid Patagonia.