Revel, even the head guy of the inspection team believed the WMD was there as he clearly testified to Congress. He was as surprised as anybody when they didn't find them.
The only thing Condi Rice admitted to was that the experts (and nobody else) could be certain until they got in there to see. I suggest you look at what she said, in her words and in context, instead of jumping on what somebody else thinks she said or reports that she said.
And you can ignore and/or discount all the many many quotes we have already posted from the prior administration related to high level belief in the existence of WMD in Iraq and the the intent of Saddam to use them. Bill Clinton even ordered a bombing run or two based on his evidence. This was long before George Bush was ever touted as a viable candidate. John Kerry and others even sent Clinton a letter encouraging him to consider initiation of military measures to deal with it. But if you continue to pretend all this didn't happen, you can understand why I would believe you are in total denial.
revel wrote: ... I also think people are turing the elections into thinking that it solved the internal problems of all the factions in Iraq. I have a feeling that it is going to come to a head in the coming weeks and months (if not sooner) when various groups didn't get what they felt that they either should have or just wanted. The early signs are already bearing that out with the articles that I have been reading on the internet some of which has been posted.
I think the Iraqi 1/30/05 election clearly elected/chose to seek democracy for Iraq. Also, it is just one more of many steps required for the Iraqis to obtain a
secure democracy. The next step is an Iraqi Assembly produced draft Constitution. Then an Iraqi election (October) to accept or reject it. If accepted, the next step (December) is an election of the members of their new Constitutional government. If rejected, the draft Constitution will be revised and put up for another election--as many revisions and elections as it takes to get a voter approved Constitution.
The Iraqis have met their shedules so far. I bet they meet these new ones as well. I'm rooting for them. I see that as the same as rooting for me and all those I love and will love.
Powell presented the UN five allegations as reasons for invading Iraq:
1. Alleged ready-to-use WMD in Iraq;
2. Alleged Saddam Regime was planning to resume WMD development after UN sanctions were lifted.
3. Alleged al Qaeda encamped in Iraq;
4. Alleged hundreds of massive weapons/munitions stockpiles in Iraq;
5. Alleged the Sadam regime was murdering thousands of Iraqi civilians every year.
All but allegation #1 have been proven true by our troops after our invasion of Iraq.
I think that any one of these proven true allegations is sufficient justification for invading Iraq--four is three more than enough.
"If they lied everybody lied going all the way back to the end of the Carter administration."
No one until Bush believed the intel and interpretation enough to invade Iraq.
Bush did not invade Iraq because he thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass distruction. He invaded Iraq because he wanted a US center of influence in the Middle East. He invaded Iraq because he could and because the intel could be twisted/interpreted to look like a threat. Also, because he could and because he thought he would be welcomed with flower petals in the streets.
I appreciate your post Kara. I am rarely here reading (because of the foolish postings that appear as Ican's above)- and almost never posting, because I feel I do not add a lot to the links of others, who follow the news releases more closely than I. Also, their analyses are much clearer than mine.
I like to read your postings, having learned in the past you are a well-read and currently informed commentator.
Arguments, such as Ican presents above...
Quote:
4. Alleged hundreds of massive weapons/munitions stockpiles in Iraq;
All but allegation #1 have been proven true by our troops after our invasion of Iraq.
...are so arguably biased and simplistic...
What nation having self defense armies does NOT stockpile weaponry, and train military?
The armies displayed by Russians, by Chinese, and North Korea..... why do we not attack them because they hoard weapons for their army?
Sigh.
Good to read you Kara... until next time
Foxfyre wrote:Revel, even the head guy of the inspection team believed the WMD was there as he clearly testified to Congress. He was as surprised as anybody when they didn't find them.
The only thing Condi Rice admitted to was that the experts (and nobody else) could be certain until they got in there to see. I suggest you look at what she said, in her words and in context, instead of jumping on what somebody else thinks she said or reports that she said.
And you can ignore and/or discount all the many many quotes we have already posted from the prior administration related to high level belief in the existence of WMD in Iraq and the the intent of Saddam to use them. Bill Clinton even ordered a bombing run or two based on his evidence. This was long before George Bush was ever touted as a viable candidate. John Kerry and others even sent Clinton a letter encouraging him to consider initiation of military measures to deal with it. But if you continue to pretend all this didn't happen, you can understand why I would believe you are in total denial.
foxfrye, you are impossible to talk to. I am going to try one more time and then hang it up because it is all water under the bridge now anyway.
The Bush administration were going around making claims about those tubes and other things that were in dispute in order to go to war before the inspections that were already under way were finished. When they were making those claims about the tubes and other things they did not say that there is doubt in the intelligence community about their intended usees. This is how they misled the country by using disputed intelligence to justify going to war when they did.
John Kerry and Clinton and others thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, I am not denying that. But they were not going around making the disputed claims that the bush administration did that turned the Iraq situation into a false urgent threat. Also at the time they were operating under old intelligence when they voiced those opinions and other things that are talking about. The Bush administration conducted a new inquiry and in that inquiry, there was doubts included about the stockpiles of WMD and the tubes and all the rest. But the Bush administration chose to ignore those doubts when talking about the intelligence.
Hans blix said even before the war that there was not any evidence of wmd.
Quote:But if you continue to pretend all this didn't happen, you can understand why I would believe you are in total denial.
think what you will and make the judgements that you like. It really does not matter anymore anyway. We are there, the Iraqi people voted, that is good. Now we will just have to wait and see how it all plays out.
Quote:and North Korea.....
TheOldLady, I have thought much about countries that want nuclear power as a deterrent. Why would North Korea, Iran, and anyone else out of favor with this country NOT want nuclear weapons now that they see what The Master of the Universe does to any country without them?
If we did anything by invading Iraq, we stirred up nuclear ambitions in any country within range of us, Israel, Pakistan, India, or any other country that has or can obtain nuclear weaponry. Libya, you say? Oh, please. They had an unviable development plan going and they happily packed it in to get rid of sanctions and slip under the wing of the US administration that would trumpet truimphally that their trashing of Iraq had deterred Libya from its nuclear ambitions.
1. Alleged ready-to-use WMD in Iraq;
And it was an immediate threat, we had to go right away, Connie saw visions of a mushroom cloud..... all dust in the wind now because Bush and his minions have tried to make all those frantic claims disappear in a series of yeahbuts. You know like, no weapons, yeahbut Saddam was a bad man..... Shucks, they should invade my uncles's garage, he's GOT some weapons in there and he too is a very bad man.
Nice work, Kara, by the way. Continue to ignore the folks who continue to try and prop up these incompetents.
Oh yeah and just in :there is now incontrovertable evidence that North Korea is the selling source for the 2 tons of hexaflouride possessed by ........ Iraq???......no, Libya. So while we attacked the empty larders of Saddam, we turned our attention away from the primary source of nuclear proliferation on the planet, just ahead of our friends in Pakistan, you remember the ones who brokered the deal between North Korea and Libya and who probably sold a bunch of stuff to the Iranians.
Yeah. Thanks Condelezza, you got your eye on the prize.
Joe(What's it going to take? A missile launch against Japan?) Nation
Just so, Joe. Why would any country on this globe not want nukes to deter us, the US that is? I think I have missed out on some stuff here. WHY would Iran NOT want nukes, with Israel within strike distance? The dance going on with Iran/Europe, and with us joining the party as good cop-bad cop, is fascinating. Whatcha wanna bet that Iran gets itself a good deal out of this?
We have nukes up the kazoo and plans for outa sight improvements on same but we want the rest of the world NOT to have them. Have you ever really thought about the nuclear proliferation stuff and where we fit into it globally?
As long as the crazy mullahs are in charge, Iran will not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Neither by us nor by Israel. Period.
Kara wrote: No one until Bush believed the intel and interpretation enough to invade Iraq.
No one but Bush had almost 3,000 American civilians murdered on his watch by al Qaeda in 2001! No one but Bush saw al Qaeda reform in Iraq on his watch in 2001. No one but Bush understood that invasions on the ground as well as in the air were necessary but not sufficient to permanently remove al Qaeda from Afghanistan and Iraq. So Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq on the ground as well as in the air because he understood it was necessary but not sufficient to permanently remove al Qaeda from both countries.
Bush invaded Iraq for
all five of the reasons he said he did. You think otherwise because .....
Bush was wrong about only one of his five reasons. You think otherwise because .....
Powell presented the UN five allegations as reasons for invading Iraq:
1. Alleged ready-to-use WMD in Iraq;
2. Alleged Saddam Regime was planning to resume WMD development after UN sanctions were lifted.
3. Alleged al Qaeda encamped in Iraq;
4. Alleged hundreds of massive weapons/munitions stockpiles in Iraq;
5. Alleged the Sadam regime was murdering thousands of Iraqi civilians every year.
JW
You mean the "crazy like a fox" mullahs?
No, Kara. I mean the mullahs that are worried about the Blue Finger Brigades assembling on the other side of the border. They're probably banning the sale of blue ink as I type this.
JustWonders wrote:As long as the crazy mullahs are in charge, Iran will not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Neither by us nor by Israel. Period.
You mean in contrast to the neo-cons in Washington, constrained as they are by common sense and the rule of law? Who would never kill innocent people by bombing?
This, a bit out of date now but sent to me last night, made me smile:
California's Secession Letter to Bush
Dear President Bush:
Congratulations on your victory over all us non-evangelicals. Actually, we're a bit ticked off here in California, so we're leaving. California will now be its own country. And we're taking all the Blue States with us. In case you are not aware, that includes: Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan,
Illinois... and all of the Northeast.
We spoke to God, and she agrees that this split will be
beneficial to almost everybody, and especially to us in the new country of California. In fact, God is so excited about it, she's going to shift the whole country at 4:30 pm EST this Friday. Therefore, please let everyone know they need to be back in their states by then.
So you get Texas and all the former slave states. We get the Governator, stem cell research and the best beaches. We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken Lay. Okay, we have to keep Martha Stewart, we can live with that. We get the Statue of Liberty. You get OpryLand.
We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom. We get Harvard. You get Old Miss. We get 85% of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get all the technological innovation in Alabama. We get about two-thirds of the tax revenue, and you get to make the red states pay their fair share.
Since our divorce rate is 22% lower than the Christian
coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms to support, and we know how much you like that.
Did I mention we produce about 70% of the nation's veggies? But heck, the only greens the Bible-thumpers eat are the pickles on their Big Macs, so no biggie. Oh yeah, another thing, don't plan on serving California wine at your state dinners. From now on it's imported French wine for you. Ouch, bet that hurts.
Just so we're clear, the country of California will be
pro-choice and anti-war. Speaking of war, we're going to want all Blue States citizens back from Iraq. If you need people to fight, just ask your evangelicals. They have tons of kids they're willing to send to their deaths for absolutely no purpose. And they don't care if you don't show pictures of their kids' caskets coming home.
Anyway, we wish you all the best in the next four years and we hope, really hope, you find those missing weapons of mass destruction. Seriously. Soon.
Warmest regards, California
Well, of course, an invasion was necessary insufficiency in removing al Qaeda from Afghanistan and Iraq. The necessity of such insufficiency is self-evident.
Has Bush decided what is sufficient, but unnecessary, to remove al Qaeda there, ican?
At the time of the invasion of Iraq there were more Al Queda in Pakistan than there were in Iraq, more in Indonesia's Banda Aceh than in Iraq, more in the backlands of the Philippines than in Iraq and probably more sympathizers in Florida, Ohio and Michigan than in Bagdad. None of that has changed, only Iraq has increased in the number of terrorists, so the plan is working, not Bush's and Richard Perle's but bin Laden's.
We now have a Secretary of State who paid scant attention to Al Queda until the twin towers were falling, who is still stuck in the notion that this War on Terrorism is amongst nations, a soon to be installed Attorney General who is an apologist for the use of torture as a means of discovering truth and a President whose delusions of grandeur are nearly as classic as those of Nero, but unluckily for all the planet's occupants, is surrounded by a devoted group of sheeple who will try to lift any glimmer of good news as biblical seachange while burying his errors, untruths, mis-steps, mis-understandings and yes, lies.
The State of the Union? I would say about an inch from Peril.
Joe (and that's not a town in Illinois. )Nation
Sounds promising, doesn't it Joe? Worry not. The sky didn't fall the last 50 time you guys predicted it and it probably won't this time either.
*whew*
I'm glad I don't live in Joe's Nation!
