The Failed Presidency.

Mr. De Kere:

Tell that to the Israelis who were hit with the missles during Desert Storm!!!

very cutting edge scrat...I guess you told me....

Italgato,

I have no need to tell the Israelis as they understand it perfectly and are not the ones calling short range missles WMDs.

Again, Iraq had missles that exceeded the limit stipulated to them by a few miles.

Was it a violation?

Yes.

Is a missle that is a violation of a distance restriction an WMD?

No.

Did you call the violative missles WMDs?

Yes.

Were you wrong?

By every definition of WMDs that is used in international treaties yes you were.

Yes, you are correct, Mr. De Kere:

I was wrong. But I have an excuse.

You must forgive me and I know you will when I tell you why I keep talking about Iraq's WMD's.


You see, Mr. De Kere, I believe that Bill Clinton was not only the best president of the twentieth century but the brightest and the best informed. Everyone said he was a "policy wonk"

He was so brilliant, he barely studied at Yale Law School but passed his courses with high grades.

You see, Mr. De Kere: I simply believe Bill Clinton when he said on December 16, 1998 that:

"And mark my words, he( Saddam) will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them and he will use them."

The difference between belief and reality is something worth considering.

Do you still believe Saddam will use WMDs?

Please Mr. De Kere:

Did you not read my post?

I did not say Saddam would use WMD's. The brightest president of the twentieth century said it.

Was he wrong?

If you think so, let me know please.

I have read many very bright people who said that Clinton was a genius in the area of foreign relations.

Perhaps you do not agree with them. That's fine.

I believe Clinton when he said that Saddam would develop, use and deploy WMD's some day.

That, of course, will not take place any more since Saddam has been removed from power.

But it is clear that President Bill Clinton warned us.

He( Saddam) will develop,use and deploy WMD's some day.

That statement is a very clear warning from Clinton to the people of the USA.

Yes, I believe Clinton was wrong. I have told you this before and as a ploy it falls flat.

You might note that I do not play the silly partisan games. I do not care about you sarcastically referencing Clinton. I do not think Clinton to have always been correct.

In short, it's an intellectually bankrupt argument and to keep using with me is pointless because I do not care if you mock Clinton and I happen to think that Clinton speaks for me no more than you do.

Thnak you for your honesty, Mr. De Kere.

I think you are indeed a person with penetrating insights and an independent spirit. I think I am coming around to your way of thinking. I will recant. Clinton was wrong about WMD's. Bush is wrong about WMD's. Saddam was right about WMD's. Did he not say he did not have them?

Now, Mr. De Kere. we have a very heavy duty placed on our shoulders. We have to convince the American voting public that Clinton and Bush were wrong about WMD's and Saddam is correct.

That is going to be tough!!!

What do you mean "we"..?

In my above post I did not say that Saddam did not have WMDs. The statement being referenced included what will most likely be a fallacious prediction about their deployment and employment.

And your quest is, indeed, likely to be difficult for you are going to have to go it alone. I do not share the confidence in my ability to sway millions of opinions that you do and Tonto's immortal words to the Lone Ranger are apropos.

I am indeed sorry that you will not join me, Mr. De Kere. Tonto's words not withstanding.( By the way, did you know that the Lone Ranger discovered, during his old age, that Kemo Sabe meant "Horse's Behind"?)

That was the only possible outcome for Tonto since the advent of "political correctness." Otherwise Tonto would have been viewed as an Indian Oreo.


I guess I will just have to strike out on my own, picking up the few who will have the courage to abjure both Clinton and Bush.

That would leave only The Friends of the Earth, the extremist elements from PETA and the Esperanto Club.

I think it would be a lost cause.

But I will try!!!

Italgato
If you are asking to read Bush's alleged mind IMO that would be impossible. Who would be able to cut through all that confusion. You ask why Bush attacked Iraq, one thing is sure it was not for the reasons claimed, that has been unequivocally established. You seem to be convinced it was because of Saddams potential to manufacture and use WMD's. That could be said for more than a few nations around the world. Are we to eventually attack all of them using the same logic? I would like to remind you that the US is in the same category.
As for substantiating documentation. What is it but some "experts" opinion? I have seen some drone on about the book they read and act as if the authors opinion was gospel when in reality it is opinion. The author will put together bits and pieces of information and opinion that coincide with his opinion and present his biased theses as fact in a well written book.
I call it dueling authors when two people argue using divergent books or authors as a basis. In effect your substantiating documentation in most instances is merely very well put together opinion.
To get back to the original question, why did Bush attack Iraq when he did? You tell me, it certainly was not for the stated reasons.

Craven is wrong. Missiles are WMD as the term is used in this debate--namely as shorthand for weapons or weapon-related items Iraq was barred from possessing or developing under existing UN sanctions. It is quibbling to call a missile a delivery vehicle... fine, they had banned delivery vehicles. The penalty is the same.

Ahhh....Gato's reasoning reminds me of the old bumper sticker that read:

BETTER DEAD THAN RED!

My thoughts on reading that were always: Holy ****! Aren't there any other choices?

Gato, using his/her usual deficient logic apparently thinks the only choices available to Bush were...

a) Totally ignore Clinton's warnings to the world

or

b) Attack Iraq preemptively -- and despite lack of concurrence of the Security Council.

Somebody please explain to Gato that his reasoning is very amateurish -- and not especially logical.

Bush could have heeded the advice -- and still not made a preemptive attack.

Jeez!

Scrat
Any port in a storm. The reasons for the invasion of Iraq has been exposed as grand fabrications by this administration. Arguing that delivery systems are WMD's is stretching that even the administration did not even attempt.

The adminstration continues to admit there are no WMD. A very nervous Condelezza was on Meet the Press over the weekend continuing to vacilate on actually saying anything other than what hasn't been said before ad nauseum. Tim Russert seemed to finally relent because he didn't want to look like he was taking advantage of her vulnerability on the subject. They had better find WMD and quit with the rationlizations because the majority of the American people are not buying it.
The fact that more Americans have been killed during the Iraqi invasion and the "aftermath" than the entire two years of our involvement in Vietnam is ominously proving, once again, that what we learn from history is that we don't learn from history.

Scrat
I should also add further if missiles are WMD's we the US is the only one guilty of using them. Since the US uses them extensively. In fact the US is the only one that does.
As for Bush listening to Clinton. I see no call by Clinton for a preemptive attack. In addition the moment Bush came into office he was intent in ignoring any of Clinton's diplomatic initiatives.

By the law of attrition, conventional weapons can become WMD.

LW
What?

Your statement is contradictory. I claimed that a missle is not a Weapon of Mass Destruction without an WMD payload.

I noted that the missles exceeded the range limits by a few miles. I noted that they were violative.

I claimed that they were not WMDs.

You claim I am wrong. Please back it up. It's not "quibbling" it's correcting an outright flase statement.

Again, in case you missed it the last time:

The world operates under a definition of WMDs that do not include missles that simply go a few miles over a stipulated limit. There is no definition in use taht would include a missle that is a few miles in violation of range restrictions as a WMD.

Yes they were a small violation of the distance restrictions. No duh! Now please support your claim that I was "wrong" to state that they are not WMDs.

I think what LW is gettin' at is that if you use enough conventional weapons you can accomplish mass detruction. Sorta right, I guess, but a finepoint. Still, by definition, any number of raids by hundreds of massed bombers, carpeting cities with explosives and incindiaries accomplished much mass destruction in WWII.