THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

I think the thread was blocked because someone called someone else an ignoramous. That comment is no longer here. If they blocked all the threads that went off topic, they'd all be blocked.

0 Replies

Bush and Co. were (and are) very careful to shape their statements so that later on, when the heat comes down, they can deny everything they said earlier and not seem like liars.

It's not a coincidence. Rove, especially, knows exactly what he is doing.

The attempts by conservatives to excuse the statements of their leaders now that they have been proven catastrophically incorrect is nothing but our usual partisan boilerplate. The only difference is that their leaders are doing a great job making every single statement, every public appearance, about two words: plausible deniability.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Bush and Co. were (and are) very careful to shape their statements so that later on, when the heat comes down, they can deny everything they said earlier and not seem like liars.

It's not a coincidence. Rove, especially, knows exactly what he is doing.

The attempts by conservatives to excuse the statements of their leaders now that they have been proven catastrophically incorrect is nothing but our usual partisan boilerplate. The only difference is that their leaders are doing a great job making every single statement, every public appearance, about two words: plausible deniability.

Kerry and Co. were (and are) very careful to shape their statements so that later on, when the heat comes down, they can deny everything they said earlier and not seem like liars.

It's not a coincidence. McAuliffe, especially, knows exactly what he is doing.

The attempts by liberals to excuse the statements of their leaders now that they have been proven catastrophically incorrect is nothing but our usual partisan boilerplate. The only difference is that their leaders are doing a great job making every single statement, every public appearance, about two words: plausible deniability. Laughing

Ok, so now let's quit exchanging horse-shoes or whatever.

I claim that Bush and his administration were truly convinced that al Qaeda were being sheltered in Iraq and had access to the Saddams' toxic chemical and bacterial stuff (i.e., WMD). This convinced them they had at least as much justification for invading Iraq as they had for invading Afghanistan 17 months earlier. I have encountered zero evidence they were not so convinced.

I am convinced you too have zero evidence they were not so convinced.

I'm also convinced that toxic stuff stopped being located in Iraq at the time of, or before, Powell's UN speech to the contrary, but at that time no one in the Bush Administration had convincing evidence that that toxic stuff was no longer in Iraq.

0 Replies

I'm convinced that they wanted to be convinced. Every piece of evidence shows that the current admin wanted justification for a war in Iraq.

When you look for evidence hard enough, you generally find it.... especially when you consistently ignore the counter-arguments to your justifications. THAT'S what happened; ignoring the evidence that didn't fit the neo-con model for what needed to happen in the region.

Cycloptichorn

p.s. Icann, despite your attempt to switch the argument around, even you must realize that the Republicans are much, much better at it! Which doesn't make it right; it just makes it much more effective.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

I think the thread was blocked because someone called someone else an ignoramous. That comment is no longer here. If they blocked all the threads that went off topic, they'd all be blocked.

oh, I don't remember that remark. Must not have been made to me or I would have. :wink:

0 Replies

You are not correct in being convinced that the Bush administration had every reason to believe what they were saying.

http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/03-18-04/discussion.cgi.11.html

"In terms of the question what is there now, we know for example that prior to our going in that he had spent time and effort acquiring mobile biological weapons labs, and we're quite confident he did, in fact, have such a program. We've found a couple of semi trailers at this point which we believe were, in fact, part of that program."
Source: Morning Edition, NPR (1/22/2004).

Explanation This statement was misleading because it claimed the purpose of the trailers was to produce biological weapons without disclosing that engineers from the Defense Intelligence Agency who examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.

The Bush Administration's Public Statements on Iraq
Vice President Richard Cheney on Nuclear Capabilities:

"[T]he reporting that we had prior to the war this time around was all consistent with that -- basically said that he had a chemical, biological and nuclear program, and estimated that if he could acquire fissile material, he could have a nuclear weapon within a year or two."
Source: Transcript of interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky Mountain News (1/9/2004).

Explanation This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was actively pursuing its nuclear program. The statement also failed to mention weeks of intensive inspections conducted directly before the war in which United Nations inspectors found no sign whatsoever of any effort by Iraq to resume its nuclear program. In addition, it failed to acknowledge the Defense Intelligence Agency position that: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

I personally feel that we have established that the administration had reasons to doubt the truth of what they were claiming before the war and I am through with trying to find evidence and sources for it.

Life is just too short.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

"There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

See there Revel? You've bolded an important point. Saddam's Iraq had an obligation to provide "reliable information on whether Iraq"... and failed to do so.

0 Replies

How do you provide information on something that isn't there, Bill?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I'll bet Charles D. Hayes doesn't cast his vote for George Bush.

0 Replies

Link, plz!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Link, plz!

Cycloptichorn

link is here:

http://www.autodidactic.com/newsletters/selfnews.htm

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I'll bet Charles D. Hayes doesn't cast his vote for George Bush.

What was it they used to say on Rowan and Martin,

"You bet your sweet bippy"?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

How do you provide information on something that isn't there, Bill?

Cycloptichorn

Simple. Don't kick out the monitors who are there to verify that no prohibited items are created... Idea

In other words: He simply needed to comply with the terms of the ceasefire, and UN resolutions, and he would have had nothing to worry about. Regardless of whether or not the US was right or wrong; Saddam was wrong. True or False?

We can argue till we're each blue in the face about who has the authority to stop a killer. No point we make will change the fact that killers need to be stopped and that ultimately it is their own fault when they are. Idea

0 Replies

Iraq was contained and inspections were being carried out by UN personel. What since that was what the UN resolution had asked for. was the justification for Bush's war.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Iraq was contained and inspections were being carried out by UN personel. What since that was what the UN resolution had asked for. was the justification for Bush's war.

If that was directed at me; try removing the blinders and reading what I've written. Idea

0 Replies

Bill wrote

Quote:

In other words: He simply needed to comply with the terms of the ceasefire, and UN resolutions, and he would have had nothing to worry about. Regardless of whether or not the US was right or wrong; Saddam was wrong. True or False?

Saddam at that moment in time was complying with the UN resolution, Inspectors were in place.

Sure Saddam was a killer or Bad man as Bush calls him. However, it is not up to the US to act as police, judge and jury. That certainly was not justification for the invasion. Exclamation

0 Replies

I don't agree AU, and it isn't likely we ever will on this. That's why I typed "Regardless of whether or not the US was right or wrong", so set that aside.

Saddam wasn't obligated to comply with UN Resolution:

A. when he felt like it.
B. when the US military surrounded him in preparation for an invasion.
C. or at any other time of his choosing.

He was obligated to comply, period. This he did not do.

From the moment he defied his first resolution...
From the moment he kicked out the first wave of inspectors...
From the moment he decided to approve the building of Al Samoud II missiles...
From the moment he crossed any of dozens of other lines...

he was deserving of his fate.

Again, we can argue till we're each blue in the face about who had the authority to stop the killer.... But a killer he is. A killer who was lucky enough to get a second chance He foolishly squandered it. At the end of the day; Saddam's decade of defiance is the reason he was removed. Had he complied, we wouldn't be having this conversation. That last resolution you refer to his complying with only exists because he failed to honor the previous 16. Idea

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

How do you provide information on something that isn't there, Bill?

Provide information to convince others it isn't there.

Officer: Are you carrying a weapon?

Suspect: No sir.

Officer: Prove it!

Suspect: I'll take off all my clothes so you can examine them and me.

Officer: Do so.

Suspect does so.

Officer: Well I'll be damned! You truly don't have a weapon in your clothes or on your naked person. Get dressed.

0 Replies

Ican
If that was supposed to be an analogy of Bush's actions relative to Iraq. You left out the part where the cop shoots the guy anyhow.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know