Even if he had used it C.I., he couldn't get around the fact he completely believed the WMD were there when we invaded Iraq. And every one of the inspectors has testified that Saddam thwarted them at every turn and there was no way they could verify WMD or the lack thereof prior to the invasion. That's what Bush needed to say.
(Edited to correct syntax and spelling error)
Kerry and the democratic senators believed Saddam had WMDs because that what the administration told them. It was not in the same intel congress was privy to; it came from unverified Iraqis - not from our intelligence agencies - who told this administration about Saddams WMDs. This administration told congress and the nation that Saddam had WMDs. Colin Powell even told the UN they knew exactly where Saddam's WMDs were located. We all know now that's a lie.
I would like to see the evidence that Colin Powell said we knew exactly where the WMDs were. And it would come to a real shock to the Senate Intelligence Committee (or the folks in the Clinton administration who also were absolutely certain of the WMDs in Iraq) that Bush had some secret intelligence he didn't show them but just said he had.
Come on C.I. Even the most rabid partisan cannot believe John Kerry would have voted to go to war if he had not seen the evidence with his own eyes. If he did, then he is definitely too much of a fool to be president.
Quote, "An example would be how Powell claimed: "We know that Saddam's son, Qusay, ordered the removal of all prohibited weapons from Saddam's numerous palace complexes ... We also have satellite photos that indicate that banned materials have recently been moved from a number of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction facilities." If Powell had been able to show any evidence for either of these claims, that would have constituted much more plausible proof of the US claims."
Fox, You have a biased, selective, brain that does you no good. Get rid of it. LOL
(1) On August 26, 2002, the Vice President in a speech stated: `Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction . . . What he wants is time, and more time to husband his resources to invest in his ongoing chemical and biological weapons program, and to gain possession of nuclear weapons.'
(2) On September 12, 2002, in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly, the President stated: `Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon.'
(3) On October 7, 2002, in a speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, the President stated: `It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons.'
(4) On January 7, 2003, the Secretary of Defense at a press briefing stated: `There is no doubt in my mind but that they currently have chemical and biological weapons.'
(5) On January 9, 2003, in his daily press briefing, the White House spokesperson stated: 'We know for a fact that there are weapons there Iraq.'
(6) On March 16, 2003, in an appearance on NBC's `Meet The Press', the Vice President stated: `We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. El Baradei frankly is wrong.'
(7) On March 17, 2003, in an Address to the Nation, the President stated: `Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.'
(8) On March 21, 2003, in his daily press briefing the White House spokesperson stated: `Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly.all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.'
(9) On March 24, 2003, in an appearance on CBS's `Face the Nation', the Secretary of Defense stated: `We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established.'
(10) On March 30, 2003, in an appearance on ABC's `This Week', the Secretary of Defense stated: `We know where they are, they are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.
I like Powell's claim better: He said "we have satellite photos...."
Didn't bush tailor the intellegence report that congress recieved? If so the entire premise that kerry and bush saw the same evidence is false.
Yup, and you'll find many in the Clinton administration and Democrats in the last four years who will testify to the same things. They had every reason to believe the WMD was there. The few skeptics were greatly outnumbered by the overwhelming majority of Republicans and Democrats who had looked at the evidence, as well as the Brits and others, and all concluded there were WMD in Iraq.
Reinforcing this conclusion was Saddam stonewalling, tricking, and snookering the U.N. weapons inspection teams for the last 13-14 years. Why did he do this if there were no WMD? Anybody's guess. He isn't talking. Clinton bombed Iraq a couple of times on less evidence than what Powell believed he had.
But as previously posted on this thread, John Kerry was just as convinced as the rest of them.....for the entire 13-14 years. This was not a George Bush invention.
So if Bush lied, they ALL lied including the vast majority in the prior Bush administration, the entire Clinton administration, the current administration, Congress, the U.K., and John Kerry.
Foxfyre wrote:Saddam was deceiving the inspectors while using all kinds of back door loopholes in the sanctions to wheel and deal with others outside of Iraq through the OFF program.
So now we went to war with Iraq to prevent "wheeling and dealing"? You spent 120 billion dollar and hundreds of soldiers' lives to prevent Saddam from enriching himself through further fraud and corruption? That's a sufficient rationale for
war?
As for his deception of the inspectors ... :
Foxfyre wrote:The sanctions were not working in that regard and any reasonable person would know, given his track record, he would have rearmed immediately once the sanctions were lifted.
Wait. You say "he would have rearmed immediately once the sanctions were lifted". That means you're acknowledging that he wasn't rearming so long the sanctions were still in place, right? (Well how could you not, it's in the Duelfer report). So that means the sanctions were
working, right? I mean, that's what they were there for, to stop him from keeping any WMD or making any new WMD, right?
Or are you arguing that the sanctions were failing because although they kept Saddam from
making any WMD, and they kept him from
keeping any WMD, they didn't keep him from
thinking about making some WMD at some point in the future? He was having bad thoughts, so we had to invade?
There's lots of people with bad thoughts out there, Foxfyre. The sanctions and inspections were meant to ensure that this guy didn't
act on any of those bad thoughts. And he didn't. You even admit it yourself, when you're saying that he would have acted on his bad thoughts as soon as the sanctions stopped. Sounds like a good reason to keep 'em in place to me.
Jimmy Carter had "impure thoughts" so we elected him president. Irony? you bet!
I'm not 'admitting' anything of the sort Nimh. I believe he had the WMD and I believe he was getting rid of them through most of the Bush administration; possible during some of the Clinton administration.. I can't prove it--nobody can at this time--but neither can a conscientious inspector prove that he didn't have them at some point. We all go on the best evidence there is.
Everybody dismisses all the preponderance of the evidence and goes with one inspector's report because it says what you want to hear. This inspection I believe is reporting in good faith.
But however you want to spin it, the first Bush administration and Congress, the Clinton administration and Congress, the second Bush administration and Congress, and John Kerry, as well as a considerable number of other foreign leaders, believed Saddam had WMD.
We went to war in good faith. There were no WMD found, but as it turned out, it was a good thing to do. We now have to finish the job and that means throwing our support fully behind whomever is President, giving our troops the encouragement of knowing the nation is with them, and win.
Quote:We now have to finish the job and that means throwing our support fully behind whomever is President, giving our troops the encouragement of knowing the nation is with them, and win
Hear, hear.
And John Kerry will find the way to fix the awful mess left behind by GW Bush.
Oh, and by the way, at the same time, deal with the real looming threats of Iran, North Korea and the vacuum created by the imminent collapse of Russia as a nation.
(Was Russia even mentioned last night?) (Except as a negotiator with the Iran nuclear problem.)???
Joe
Foxfyre wrote:the first Bush administration and Congress, the Clinton administration and Congress, the second Bush administration and Congress, and John Kerry, as well as a considerable number of other foreign leaders, believed Saddam had WMD.
However, a considerable number of
other foreign leaders believed there was
no convincing evidence that Saddam still had WMD. He might have had them, but we told you that the evidence you were going on was flimsy. German foreign minister: "Excuse me, I am not convinced".
As for the war "turning out to be a good thing", thats all about costs vs benefits isnt it? The war, it turns out, did not prevent a tyrant from having and possibly using WMD, because he didnt have any to begin with, and hadnt been making any for thirteen years. The war did not prevent an unscrupulous leader from handing over such WMD to terrorists who were out to attack America because, well, he didnt have them
plus he didnt have a working relationship with those terrorists. The war obviously did not - or not yet - create an example of proper democracy to the Arab world, since there have been no elections and the prospects for them are shaky since large parts of the country are under control of the insurgents (says a government report).
What did the war bring? An end to brutal dictatorship for those Iraqis who, unlike the Kurds, were still in Saddam's hands by last year. And its replacement by a state of semi-anarchy, with violent insurgents in control of much of the country and inviting in ever more of those terrorists Saddam did not have a working relationship with. Because some of them sure do. Compare what Zarqawi gets up to now with what he did back when he was in Saddam's territory before the war. Back then, he got to have an operation in hospital. Now, he's having lots of peoples throats cut. Progress in the War against Terrorism.
Well it would be nice if we all had your impeccable 20-20 hindsight Nimh. But we didn't. I believe that both the administration and Congress acted in good faith with the information they had available to them. Germany, France, and Russia, as it is turning out, all may be mixed up in the OFF scandal and could have had a strong self-interest in Iraq not being invaded.
As for the pessimistic outlook you seem to have, I do not share it. I saw the photographs of the mass graves holding at least 300,000 Iraqi men, women, and children. I heard the testimony of the men who had lost their hands, without anesthesia, to Saddam's butchers and received new ones at the hands of American doctors. There is so much more. You won't convince me that it is wrong that we are there.
The real tragedy will be that the price in blood and treasure will be for nothing if the anti-war protesters break the will of the administration and we don't push for a decisive victory and accomplish the mission.
I accept that you and many others here on A2K think we should have left Saddam alone. I just disagree with that, and I think I can't add any more to my reasons without retyping the same stuff.
Foxfyre wrote:Well it would be nice if we all had your impeccable 20-20 hindsight Nimh.
Not a question of hindsight, Fox - question of what we were already saying
back then. But you wouldnt listen.
(You - America, you - Fox -- either way it applies).
Hence our frustration at you people now claiming that the criticism is a question of "hindsight" - we were out in the streets back then already, remember? Our (Old Europe) diplomats warned you back then already about the lack of WMD you now claim could only have been known in hindsight.
Foxfyre wrote:I saw the photographs of the mass graves holding at least 300,000 Iraqi men, women, and children.
Nice rhetorics but there are no mass graves holding literally hundreds of thousands Iraqis. Furthermore - and more importantly, because I do not dispute that Saddam had thousands of innocent people killed - the overwhelming majority of the victims to his dictatorship fell years ago. He tried to gas the Kurds, yes - back in the 1980s. When President Bush Sr was shielding him from the bipartisan Congress effort to punish him for it. But the Kurds have long since been safe from Saddam. By 2003, he was as much a lame-duck dictator as he ever was.
The "humanitarian" rationale for war is definitely the best defense you're left with. But it applied less in 2003 than at any time the past twentyfive years.
"shianews.com"?
Gee, if I'm ever in need of an AgitProp fix, I'll come lookin' fer ya, Fochsfeuer.
I think the point is not whether we believed the intelligence but whether we believed in the judgement of George W. Bush. We did. We all, John Kerry included, said "Well okay, you're the leader, we have our doubts about what you say, but you say what goes." And what he said turned out to be wrong. We were not led, we were mis-lead.
There are consequences when you are the leader and you screw up. Most of the time you are fired from your job and that's what I hope we do November 2nd.
Joe
I'll second that thought Joe!
