What the hell is George Bush talking about?

So Frank, are you trying to imply that Saddam didn't have his own people tortured and killed ? Or that the mass graves that we are digging up in Iraq were just bodies that were dropped from B-2 bombers to give the illusion of mass graves?

They didn't plant WMD, because they were mostly honest people.

Brandon9000 wrote:

They didn't plant WMD, because they were mostly honest people.

Oh My God...

LOL! I will be the bunny...

McGentrix, Fedral - as I am sure you know, the reasons given for going to war with Iraq were not that Saddam was a bad man - few would argue with that - but that he had WMD which threatened the security of the US/world and that he was somehow implicated in September 11th in particular and terrorism in general.

Yes, anyone sensible knew Bush was out to get him from the get go - so this is not "news" - however, confirmation that this was so IS important, since the reasons given for war have not proven to be so, and it IS, I believe, of great moment that war has been waged based (at least in terms of the reasons actually given publicly) on errors/lies.

I note that you do not deny the Saddam death toll.

So Frank, are you trying to imply that Saddam didn't have his own people tortured and killed ?

Asked Monday about former Treasury secretary Paul H. O'Neill's allegation that the administration was preparing to attack Iraq from its first days in office, President Bush told reporters that "we were dealing with Desert Badger or flyovers and fly-betweens and looks, and we were fashioning policy along those lines."

What the f#@&?

"Potential" is an argument that can be used to justify invading anyone.

Note: Morning's over.

A question you folks might ask yourselves is: Why didn't they simply say: "He's a bad guy and we want to take him out for that reason -- and we want to do it now?"

....

In any case, if we were wrong on our assessment of what Saddam had in the way of WMD and where he had it -- with all the spy satellite coverage we were be able to bring to bear in order to get intelligence on this matter -- why are you so certain we know that millions were gassed and killed -- and that Saddam absolutely was the one who did it?

Why do you consider that information as more reliable than the information on the WMD?

...

Okay?

Frank Apisa wrote:

A question you folks might ask yourselves is: Why didn't they simply say: "He's a bad guy and we want to take him out for that reason -- and we want to do it now?"

....

In any case, if we were wrong on our assessment of what Saddam had in the way of WMD and where he had it -- with all the spy satellite coverage we were be able to bring to bear in order to get intelligence on this matter -- why are you so certain we know that millions were gassed and killed -- and that Saddam absolutely was the one who did it?

Why do you consider that information as more reliable than the information on the WMD?

...

Okay?

No, it's not. The administration said that the risk that he has or will soon have WMD, and that a man like him might use them or give them to terrorists who might use them is unacceptably large. They said that, because that is what they meant, and they were entirely correct.

To make this more explicit, if we say, for example:

(1) the ruler of country X is very evil
(2) there is a 25% chance that he has WMD or WMD programs
(3) there is a 25% chance that if he had them, a guy like that would use them against us,

and if we then we go in and for one reason or another don't find them, it neither means that our facts were wrong, or that we shoudn't have gone in based on what we knew at the time.

When a police officer arrests a suspect and frisks him for a gun, the fact that he doesn't find a gun neither means that he was not justified in frisking him, or that the suspect didn't have a gun a moment before the arrest.

Oh, yes, and the figures on the Iraqis hilled by Saddam are merely the ones usually given. You can find statistics like these all over the Web.

The administration said that the risk that he has or will soon have WMD, and that a man like him might use them or give them to terrorists who might use them is unacceptably large. They said that, because that is what they meant, and they were entirely correct.

"For the sake of peace, Saddam Hussein must disarm. And if he does not, we will lead a coalition to disarm him."

Craven de Kere wrote:

"Potential" is an argument that can be used to justify invading anyone.

Note: Morning's over.

Wrong.

Not everyone is an extremely evil dictator, who has a long history of developing WMD in secret and then concealing it, and of deliberately using the weapons against civilians. The relevance of Hussein being an extremely evil dictator is in the assessment of what someone of his character might do with WMD.

I must reiterate that we are no longer living in the days when the threat was a naval invasion with soldiers armed with gunpowder weapons. The threat is now weapons that could be smuggled into the country and detonated, with a power such that one use of one might produce a toll of dead and wounded in the millions. I am not talking about the potential for any conceivable mischief, I am talking about the potential for the rapid deaths of staggering numbers of Americans or allies. The principles regarding war which applied in the past do not all apply under these frightening conditions.

A big deal was made over O'Neill's revelation that the Bush Administration was making plans for an invasion of Iraq almost as soon as they moved into the White House. Oops. Then we learn that the Clinton Administration had been making the very same plans, and that in fact those plans were required after a law was passed in 1998 making regime change in Iraq an integral part of American foreign policy.

Fair enough.

But throught history the nation that has killed the most civilians through the use of WMDs is the USA.

And as long as we are dealing in "potential" I wonder if we should start aressting minorities and jailing them, for their "potential" to commit crime.

The only legal justification for pre-emptive war is imminent danger Brandon9000.

The only legal justification for pre-emptive war is imminent danger Brandon9000.