A chronicle: Media question honesty of Bush administration

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: etech
If Saddam had no wmd why wasn't he screaming for the weapons inspectors to come back into Iraq and prove and then to lift the sanctions?

Why did it take the threat of military force to get the UN inspectors back into the country?

The UN want's to place inspectors in the US, the US will not allow it... what are they hiding?

The UN eventually get's to place inspectors in the US, but are later thrown out, what are they hiding?

Would you, as a leader of a country accept such a thing as inspections?

Of fvcking course not...

The american view of the world is amazing, "we have the power and the might, they must bow" and if they don't? I see the same thinking about superiority that has been seen before every world war...

This war was about WMD, can't find any? oh, then it's about the liberation, oh, yes, most (500 people shown on your television screen by fox) are sooo happy...

The truth is, most of them aren't happy, aren't sad, they just wish things could go back to normal, they aren't that different from you and me, they go to work, they eat, sleep and procreate just like us...

Anyone who claims this war was for the good of Irak is a joke, what would have been good for Irak would be to support opposition and help them win... THAT would have been good for Irak, this is just good for the coalition of the billing...

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: etech
If Saddam had no wmd why wasn't he screaming for the weapons inspectors to come back into Iraq and prove and then to lift the sanctions?

Why did it take the threat of military force to get the UN inspectors back into the country?

The UN want's to place inspectors in the US, the US will not allow it... what are they hiding?

The UN eventually get's to place inspectors in the US, but are later thrown out, what are they hiding?

Would you, as a leader of a country accept such a thing as inspections?

Of fvcking course not...

The american view of the world is amazing, "we have the power and the might, they must bow" and if they don't? I see the same thinking about superiority that has been seen before every world war...

This war was about WMD, can't find any? oh, then it's about the liberation, oh, yes, most (500 people shown on your television screen by fox) are sooo happy...

The truth is, most of them aren't happy, aren't sad, they just wish things could go back to normal, they aren't that different from you and me, they go to work, they eat, sleep and procreate just like us...

Anyone who claims this war was for the good of Irak is a joke, what would have been good for Irak would be to support opposition and help them win... THAT would have been good for Irak, this is just good for the coalition of the billing...

the problem with that story is that we are inspected by the IAEA and we're completely transparent about it.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: cpumaster

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

I agree this is factually correct, but I doubt it is relevant. I don't think there is anything Iraq could have done to prove it was in compliance to the satisfaction of the Bush administration. It was a no-win for Iraq; Bush had already decided we were going to attack.

Even if this were the true reason for our attack, it must be the first war in history justified by spotty paperwork.

its not just spotty paperwork, its no paperwork. if the iraqis were as transparent as the former soviet states and south africa blair and powell would have talked him out of whatever he would have wanted, i'm sure. if there was good evidence of disarmament he would have had no backing in congress and no backing popularly.

yet it takes the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor before we decided to enter WWII,

this war was largely based on Bush conviction that Saddam has WMDs and will lie and do everything to hide them, supported only by thin evidence of unaccounted chem & bio agents on paperworks and the apparent reluctance of Iraqis official to be 100% cooperative with UN (and US in the security council)

what if the Saddam/Iraqis suspect that telling UN their every military secret (not just WMD, but other secret military facilities, as US would probably accussed them to contain WMD) would be equal to committing suicide as US could have used it to advantages and still attack Iraq anyway?

yeah Saddam has been given chance for 12 years to comply with UN resolution, yet there are other countries that never comply with UN resolution and no action was taken against them, eg. Israel under UN resolution should have given back the Golan height to Syria, yet they still keep it until today and you don't see Bush going on TV threatening Isreal to comply with UN rsolution.

the view of the world was different back in 1940.

when will people get straight that saddam and company had to prove they were getting rid of the weapons (which btw were known to exist in when the inspectors were pulled by clinton prior to his cruise missle strikes). there is no way that if they were transparent about disarming that they would have been attacked. it would not have happened.

as for the 3rd paragraoh, its a perfect example of individual agendas creating world events which is why i don't buy into many structural explanations of history.

 

[CaptnKirk]

And once again, the Administration can't grasp the concept of truthfullness

 

[Corn]

The UN want's to place inspectors in the US, the US will not allow it... what are they hiding?

That might be a valid point, except for the fact that Iraq agreed to allow weapons inspectors into their country as one of the terms of a cease-fire agreement they had signed.

 

[Moonbeam]

I thought the weapons inspector teams were corrupted by CIA spies the first time round and that allowing more in would only serve to find and target Saddam so we could assasinate him, no? If you sign up for rape and get raped and strabbed in the back too, is your signature still good for more rape and murder, or not? What would an impartial judge say?

 

[Corn]

What would an impartial judge say?

An impartial judge would ask for evidence beyond that which you imagine.

Of course the weapons inspectors were infiltrated by CIA spies bent on assassinating him, Saddam said so!!!!

 

[Moonbeam]

Saddam said so?
-------------
I don't know, did he? You were certainly willing to buy the argument he signed as if it meant something. Fine by me, but do you have all the facts. Do you know the REST OF THE STORY. How do things look from other perspectives? I always hate to get too wedded to my opinion in case I have to change it for some odd reason.

 

[Corn]

You were certainly willing to buy the argument he signed as if it meant something.

"meant something"? I realize the concept of individual responsibility is foreign to the liberal mindset, but I'm at a loss to understand why you think a signed treaty is meaningless?

 

[Moonbeam]

Ask the people who infiltrated the CIA into it's provisions. I abide both to the spirit and the letter of my agreements.

 

[Corn]

Ask the people who infiltrated the CIA into it's provisions.

The impartial judge is still waiting on your evidence...........

 

[Moonbeam]

Here ya go, Corn.

 

[Moonbeam]

Or this.

But you can find your own, just look on the web.

For Example.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Or this.

But you can find your own, just look on the web.

For Example.

owned... :Q

 

[Corn]

owned...

Hardly.

For the sake of posterity, Moonie proclaimed:

I thought the weapons inspector teams were corrupted by CIA spies the first time round and that allowing more in would only serve to find and target Saddam so we could assasinate him, no?

The fact that the CIA had a working relationship with the weapons inspectors != a plan to assassinate Saddam. All Moonie did was provide what is already common knowledge. I asked him for evidence that the weapons inspectors were CIA spies whose mission was to "find and target saddam so we could assasinate him".

Clearly Moonbeam has failed to provide this evidence.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I thought the weapons inspector teams were corrupted by CIA spies the first time round and that allowing more in would only serve to find and target Saddam so we could assasinate him, no? If you sign up for rape and get raped and strabbed in the back too, is your signature still good for more rape and murder, or not? What would an impartial judge say?

an impartial judge would determine that saddam was in material breech of the contract that he signed to fully document the dismantle of his WMD programs.

 

[Moonbeam]

The fact that the CIA had a working relationship with the weapons inspectors != a plan to assassinate Saddam. All Moonie did was provide what is already common knowledge. I asked him for evidence that the weapons inspectors were CIA spies whose mission was to "find and target saddam so we could assasinate him".

Clearly Moonbeam has failed to provide this evidence.
----------------------------
Come on Corn, when I asked you to come play in the sand, I didn't mean your sand box. That's exactly what I wanted you to consider you were in. I didn't say the CIA was infiltrated the Inspectors team to assasinate Saddam, I was asking you why a signature on a treaty the US had no respect for bound him to it in your opinion. I was asking you to put yourself in his place as ask what you, an unscrupulously honest man, would think of somebody who jerked you around and then, under the same scenario suggested a repeat of the same game. I was just suggesting you ask yourself, since you were so fixated on rules, whether your opinion might be different were you in a different pair of shoes. Doesn't one party cheating sort of change the terms of a contract or does that always depend on whose side cheats, yours or theirs?

 

[Moonbeam]

ELFenix, thanks for showing Corn what it means to be certain. I thought we decided against a trial in favor of invasion. It's just too bad we lost thousands and thousands of troops to those weapons. They certainly lived up to the Mass part of their name. I just hope we never have to fight against such a powerful adversary ever again. It could deplete our uranium.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
ELFenix, thanks for showing Corn what it means to be certain. I thought we decided against a trial in favor of invasion. It's just too bad we lost thousands and thousands of troops to those weapons. They certainly lived up to the Mass part of their name. I just hope we never have to fight against such a powerful adversary ever again. It could deplete our uranium.

its too bad there really isn't a court for that sorta thing

 

[Corn]

I didn't say the CIA was infiltrated the Inspectors team to assasinate Saddam.....

Really?

I thought the weapons inspector teams were corrupted by CIA spies the first time round and that allowing more in would only serve to find and target Saddam so we could assasinate him, no?

As usual your lack of integrity precludes you from being honest in your arguments.

I was asking you to put yourself in his place as ask what you, an unscrupulously honest man, would think of somebody who jerked you around and then, under the same scenario suggested a repeat of the same game. I was just suggesting you ask yourself, since you were so fixated on rules, whether your opinion might be different were you in a different pair of shoes. Doesn't one party cheating sort of change the terms of a contract or does that always depend on whose side cheats, yours or theirs?

My honesty and scrouples would prohibit me from being put in a situation similar to Saddam in the first place. But more to the point, a deal's a deal. Did the cease fire agreement state that the weapons inspectors wouldn't be working with the CIA? If not, I don't see how the last sentence in your above quote has any validity.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
Give them time and they will turn up the weapons

Isn't this precisely what the UN Weapon Inspectors said BEFORE the hawks decided to go to war? Unbelievable ...

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I thought the weapons inspector teams were corrupted by CIA spies the first time round and that allowing more in would only serve to find and target Saddam so we could assasinate him, no? If you sign up for rape and get raped and strabbed in the back too, is your signature still good for more rape and murder, or not? What would an impartial judge say?

an impartial judge would determine that saddam was in material breech of the contract that he signed to fully document the dismantle of his WMD programs.

Incorrect. The facts show otherwise.

The "impartial judge" - or more accurately, the responsible authority - was the U.N.; the U.N. inspection team was the prosecution. The prosecution found that a charge of "material breach" was not yet warranted, and the "judge" supported this recommendation. It was gangster Bush who decided to take vengeance into his own hands.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I thought the weapons inspector teams were corrupted by CIA spies the first time round and that allowing more in would only serve to find and target Saddam so we could assasinate him, no? If you sign up for rape and get raped and strabbed in the back too, is your signature still good for more rape and murder, or not? What would an impartial judge say?

an impartial judge would determine that saddam was in material breech of the contract that he signed to fully document the dismantle of his WMD programs.

Incorrect. The facts show otherwise.

The "impartial judge" - or more accurately, the responsible authority - was the U.N.; the U.N. inspection team was the prosecution. The prosecution found that a charge of "material breach" was not yet warranted, and the "judge" supported this recommendation. It was gangster Bush who decided to take vengeance into his own hands.

nope,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq?s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

 

[Moonbeam]

Come on etech, that just that thingi were they promised "Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations"

Nobody ever got back together and decided that the serious consequences phase had to begin or what they were. The US acted unilaterally self-justifying it's own interpretation of that they would be itself. The legal process was cut short.

Corn: "I don't see how the last sentence in your above quote has any validity."
-----------------

You're telling me? That's what I was telling you. You don't see any validity because of your perspective. You didn't answer my questions. Assuming you were an honest and decent Saddam and were being pressured to do again something a bad guy had screwed you on before, would you do it again. Everything is about where you stand. You want to look only at your own position. I want to look at as much as I can so I don't get bit in the ass by hubris is I can avoid it.

 

[Bowfinger]

Here are a couple of new Op-Ed pieces about the honesty of the Bush administration. I've included brief excerpts; follow the link if you're interested in the whole piece:

From The Nation, Weapons of Mass Delusion?
Perhaps Saddam did have lots of WMDs, and perhaps the United States will find them. Not a day goes by, it seems, without a front-page announcement of their discovery that is retracted, on page B18, the next morning. Meanwhile, as David Corn reports on page 11, the hunt for WMDs is hardly proceeding with the seriousness and singlemindedness one might expect, given how impatient Bush was with poor Hans Blix. After all, if they are out there and we don't find them quick, then someone else--a Baath party loyalist, a renegade scientist, Al Qaeda--might get hold of them. Oh, but I'm forgetting--they're in Syria.

[ ... ]

From the New York Times, Missing in Action: Truth
Consider the now-disproved claims by President Bush and Colin Powell that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger so it could build nuclear weapons. As Seymour Hersh noted in The New Yorker, the claims were based on documents that had been forged so amateurishly that they should never have been taken seriously.

Another example is the abuse of intelligence from Hussein Kamel, a son-in-law of Saddam Hussein and head of Iraq's biological weapons program until his defection in 1995. Top British and American officials kept citing information from Mr. Kamel as evidence of a huge secret Iraqi program, even though Mr. Kamel had actually emphasized that Iraq had mostly given up its W.M.D. program in the early 1990's. Glen Rangwala, a British Iraq expert, says the transcript of Mr. Kamel's debriefing was leaked because insiders resented the way politicians were misleading the public.

[ ... ]