• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

MSNBC: Is Iraqi Intel Still Being Manipulated?

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Here is an interesting article about the Iraqi scientist who buried the centrifuge parts in his rose garden:
Is Iraqi Intel Still Being Manipulated? The sad and secretive tale of an Iraqi scientist
His story seemed, in the beginning, a godsend for the Bush administration. In early June, Iraqi nuclear scientist Mahdi Obeidi revealed to CIA investigators that in 1991, just after the Persian Gulf War, he had gone into his backyard to bury gas-centrifuge equipment used to enrich uranium.

[ ... ]

But for the Bush administration, things quickly began to go wrong with the Obeidi story. True, Obeidi said he?d buried the centrifuge equipment, as he?d been ordered to do in 1991 by Saddam?s son Qusay Hussein and son-in-law Hussein Kamel. But he also insisted to the CIA that, in effect, that was that: Saddam had never reconstituted his centrifuge program afterward, in large part because of the Iraqi tyrant?s fear of being discovered under the U.N. sanctions-and-inspections regime. If true, this was a terribly inconvenient fact for the Bush administration, after months in which Secretary of State Colin Powell and other senior officials had alleged that aluminum tubes imported from 11 countries were intended for just such a centrifuge program. Obeidi denied that and added that he would have known about any attempts to restart the program. He also told the CIA that, as the International Atomic Energy Agency and many technical experts have said, the aluminum tubes were intended for rockets, not uranium enrichment or a nuclear-weapons program. And he stuck by his story, despite persistent questioning by CIA investigators who still believed he was not telling the full truth.

Soon, not only was Obeidi no longer a marquee name for the Bush team, he was incommunicado. Whisked off to a safe house in Kuwait, with no access to phones or the Internet, he waited in vain for what he thought had been offered to him: asylum in the United States and green cards granting permanent residency to him and his eight-member family.

[ ... ]
My take on the article: more evidence there was no revival of the Iraqi nukes program, and more evidence the Bush administration tries to manipulate intelligence to get the answers they want. It also supports the belief that our efforts to contain Iraq were effective. Finally, it's a shabby way to treat someone who helped us.


 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
My take on the article: more evidence there was no revival of the Iraqi nukes program, and more evidence the Bush administration tries to manipulate intelligence to get the answers they want. It also supports the belief that our efforts to contain Iraq were effective. Finally, it's a shabby way to treat someone who helped us.
My take on the article is that it confirms the fact that Saddam was trying to hide things from us, he was simply waiting for the UN, the US and the UK to "give up", lift the no-fly zones and cave in to the French and others to lift the sanctions. In the mean time he was content to have thousands of his people die while he lived high on the hog and to lead the inspecors around by the nose, playing his little game of hide and seek until they gave the all clear.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
My take on the article: more evidence there was no revival of the Iraqi nukes program, and more evidence the Bush administration tries to manipulate intelligence to get the answers they want. It also supports the belief that our efforts to contain Iraq were effective. Finally, it's a shabby way to treat someone who helped us.
My take on the article is that it confirms the fact that Saddam was trying to hide things from us, he was simply waiting for the UN, the US and the UK to "give up", lift the no-fly zones and cave in to the French and others to lift the sanctions. In the mean time he was content to have thousands of his people die while he lived high on the hog and to lead the inspecors around by the nose, playing his little game of hide and seek until they gave the all clear.
That's all well and good, but it's not how the Bush administration justified its unilateral invasion of Iraq.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
My take on the article: more evidence there was no revival of the Iraqi nukes program, and more evidence the Bush administration tries to manipulate intelligence to get the answers they want. It also supports the belief that our efforts to contain Iraq were effective. Finally, it's a shabby way to treat someone who helped us.
My take on the article is that it confirms the fact that Saddam was trying to hide things from us, he was simply waiting for the UN, the US and the UK to "give up", lift the no-fly zones and cave in to the French and others to lift the sanctions. In the mean time he was content to have thousands of his people die while he lived high on the hog and to lead the inspecors around by the nose, playing his little game of hide and seek until they gave the all clear.
That's all well and good, but it's not how the Bush administration justified its unilateral invasion of Iraq.
True, unfourtunatly :( I fear it way to late for any WMDs annoucements about WMDs found in Iraq.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
My take on the article: more evidence there was no revival of the Iraqi nukes program, and more evidence the Bush administration tries to manipulate intelligence to get the answers they want. It also supports the belief that our efforts to contain Iraq were effective. Finally, it's a shabby way to treat someone who helped us.
My take on the article is that it confirms the fact that Saddam was trying to hide things from us, he was simply waiting for the UN, the US and the UK to "give up", lift the no-fly zones and cave in to the French and others to lift the sanctions. In the mean time he was content to have thousands of his people die while he lived high on the hog and to lead the inspecors around by the nose, playing his little game of hide and seek until they gave the all clear.
And that has what to do with Iraq intel?

 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
My take on the article: more evidence there was no revival of the Iraqi nukes program, and more evidence the Bush administration tries to manipulate intelligence to get the answers they want. It also supports the belief that our efforts to contain Iraq were effective. Finally, it's a shabby way to treat someone who helped us.
My take on the article is that it confirms the fact that Saddam was trying to hide things from us, he was simply waiting for the UN, the US and the UK to "give up", lift the no-fly zones and cave in to the French and others to lift the sanctions. In the mean time he was content to have thousands of his people die while he lived high on the hog and to lead the inspecors around by the nose, playing his little game of hide and seek until they gave the all clear.
That's all well and good, but it's not how the Bush administration justified its unilateral invasion of Iraq.

It was certainly part of the reason.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
My take on the article: more evidence there was no revival of the Iraqi nukes program, and more evidence the Bush administration tries to manipulate intelligence to get the answers they want. It also supports the belief that our efforts to contain Iraq were effective. Finally, it's a shabby way to treat someone who helped us.
My take on the article is that it confirms the fact that Saddam was trying to hide things from us, he was simply waiting for the UN, the US and the UK to "give up", lift the no-fly zones and cave in to the French and others to lift the sanctions. In the mean time he was content to have thousands of his people die while he lived high on the hog and to lead the inspecors around by the nose, playing his little game of hide and seek until they gave the all clear.
That's all well and good, but it's not how the Bush administration justified its unilateral invasion of Iraq.
It was certainly part of the reason.
Perhaps I missed a speech, but what I remember hearing was "weapons of mass destruction" and "mushroom cloud" and "al Qaeda" and "UAVs" and what an imminent danger Iraq posed to the U.S. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell, over and over, on news shows, in speeches, before the U.N., they hammered these themes relentlessly before the attack. I don't remember even one of them ever mentioning Hussein living high on the hog as a reason for invasion.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
My take on the article: more evidence there was no revival of the Iraqi nukes program, and more evidence the Bush administration tries to manipulate intelligence to get the answers they want. It also supports the belief that our efforts to contain Iraq were effective. Finally, it's a shabby way to treat someone who helped us.
My take on the article is that it confirms the fact that Saddam was trying to hide things from us, he was simply waiting for the UN, the US and the UK to "give up", lift the no-fly zones and cave in to the French and others to lift the sanctions. In the mean time he was content to have thousands of his people die while he lived high on the hog and to lead the inspecors around by the nose, playing his little game of hide and seek until they gave the all clear.
That's all well and good, but it's not how the Bush administration justified its unilateral invasion of Iraq.
It was certainly part of the reason.
Perhaps I missed a speech, but what I remember hearing was "weapons of mass destruction" and "mushroom cloud" and "al Qaeda" and "UAVs" and what an imminent danger Iraq posed to the U.S. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell, over and over, on news shows, in speeches, before the U.N., they hammered these themes relentlessly before the attack. I don't remember even one of them ever mentioning Hussein living high on the hog as a reason for invasion.
So you never heard Bush say "regime change" as one of the reasons to go into Iraq and then describe how Saddam was living compared to the citizens of Iraq, the new palaces, etc.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,214
126
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
My take on the article: more evidence there was no revival of the Iraqi nukes program, and more evidence the Bush administration tries to manipulate intelligence to get the answers they want. It also supports the belief that our efforts to contain Iraq were effective. Finally, it's a shabby way to treat someone who helped us.
My take on the article is that it confirms the fact that Saddam was trying to hide things from us, he was simply waiting for the UN, the US and the UK to "give up", lift the no-fly zones and cave in to the French and others to lift the sanctions. In the mean time he was content to have thousands of his people die while he lived high on the hog and to lead the inspecors around by the nose, playing his little game of hide and seek until they gave the all clear.
That's all well and good, but it's not how the Bush administration justified its unilateral invasion of Iraq.
It was certainly part of the reason.
Perhaps I missed a speech, but what I remember hearing was "weapons of mass destruction" and "mushroom cloud" and "al Qaeda" and "UAVs" and what an imminent danger Iraq posed to the U.S. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell, over and over, on news shows, in speeches, before the U.N., they hammered these themes relentlessly before the attack. I don't remember even one of them ever mentioning Hussein living high on the hog as a reason for invasion.
So you never heard Bush say "regime change" as one of the reasons to go into Iraq and then describe how Saddam was living compared to the citizens of Iraq, the new palaces, etc.

Odd, but you commented on this and were critical before you reconciled yourself to Bush's POV.

At first it was about regime change. When that wasn't going to fly, it became Saddam disarming. The curious moment was when Ari was asked during a press conference about the change in policy, and Ari said to the effect that if Saddam disarmed, that would be an indication that he was changing how his regime functioned, and that was regime change. No one bought it then. Well almost no one. It was about as laughable as "is, is".


Time after time the administration said Saddam had to disarm in order to prevent "serious consequences". Disarm. Not palaces. Not treatment of Iraqis. Disarmanent. That was the entire bill of goods at the time, and we knew what they had and where it was.

So we were told.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
My take on the article: more evidence there was no revival of the Iraqi nukes program, and more evidence the Bush administration tries to manipulate intelligence to get the answers they want. It also supports the belief that our efforts to contain Iraq were effective. Finally, it's a shabby way to treat someone who helped us.
My take on the article is that it confirms the fact that Saddam was trying to hide things from us, he was simply waiting for the UN, the US and the UK to "give up", lift the no-fly zones and cave in to the French and others to lift the sanctions. In the mean time he was content to have thousands of his people die while he lived high on the hog and to lead the inspecors around by the nose, playing his little game of hide and seek until they gave the all clear.
That's all well and good, but it's not how the Bush administration justified its unilateral invasion of Iraq.
It was certainly part of the reason.
Perhaps I missed a speech, but what I remember hearing was "weapons of mass destruction" and "mushroom cloud" and "al Qaeda" and "UAVs" and what an imminent danger Iraq posed to the U.S. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell, over and over, on news shows, in speeches, before the U.N., they hammered these themes relentlessly before the attack. I don't remember even one of them ever mentioning Hussein living high on the hog as a reason for invasion.
So you never heard Bush say "regime change" as one of the reasons to go into Iraq and then describe how Saddam was living compared to the citizens of Iraq, the new palaces, etc.

Odd, but you commented on this and were critical before you reconciled yourself to Bush's POV.

At first it was about regime change. When that wasn't going to fly, it became Saddam disarming. The curious moment was when Ari was asked during a press conference about the change in policy, and Ari said to the effect that if Saddam disarmed, that would be an indication that he was changing how his regime functioned, and that was regime change. No one bought it then. Well almost no one. It was about as laughable as "is, is".


Time after time the administration said Saddam had to disarm in order to prevent "serious consequences". Disarm. Not palaces. Not treatment of Iraqis. Disarmanent. That was the entire bill of goods at the time, and we knew what they had and where it was.

So we were told.
I understood our reasons to be all of that, not one or the other. Those were certainly reasons I personally considered when deciding whether I was for or against the war.

 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
My take on the article: more evidence there was no revival of the Iraqi nukes program, and more evidence the Bush administration tries to manipulate intelligence to get the answers they want. It also supports the belief that our efforts to contain Iraq were effective. Finally, it's a shabby way to treat someone who helped us.
My take on the article is that it confirms the fact that Saddam was trying to hide things from us, he was simply waiting for the UN, the US and the UK to "give up", lift the no-fly zones and cave in to the French and others to lift the sanctions. In the mean time he was content to have thousands of his people die while he lived high on the hog and to lead the inspecors around by the nose, playing his little game of hide and seek until they gave the all clear.
That's all well and good, but it's not how the Bush administration justified its unilateral invasion of Iraq.
It was certainly part of the reason.
Perhaps I missed a speech, but what I remember hearing was "weapons of mass destruction" and "mushroom cloud" and "al Qaeda" and "UAVs" and what an imminent danger Iraq posed to the U.S. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell, over and over, on news shows, in speeches, before the U.N., they hammered these themes relentlessly before the attack. I don't remember even one of them ever mentioning Hussein living high on the hog as a reason for invasion.
So you never heard Bush say "regime change" as one of the reasons to go into Iraq and then describe how Saddam was living compared to the citizens of Iraq, the new palaces, etc.

Odd, but you commented on this and were critical before you reconciled yourself to Bush's POV.

At first it was about regime change. When that wasn't going to fly, it became Saddam disarming. The curious moment was when Ari was asked during a press conference about the change in policy, and Ari said to the effect that if Saddam disarmed, that would be an indication that he was changing how his regime functioned, and that was regime change. No one bought it then. Well almost no one. It was about as laughable as "is, is".


Time after time the administration said Saddam had to disarm in order to prevent "serious consequences". Disarm. Not palaces. Not treatment of Iraqis. Disarmanent. That was the entire bill of goods at the time, and we knew what they had and where it was.

So we were told.


U.S. had more than one reason for war

"Your July 31 editorial asks about supporters of the war with Iraq: "Why did they focus almost exclusively on the supposedly imminent threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction?" The question is factually wrong.

President Bush never argued that the Iraq posed an "imminent" threat from weapons of mass destruction. Bush actually argued the opposite: that is, that Iraq needed to be dealt with before the threat was imminent. For example, Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union address: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

...
The irony is strong here. It clearly wasn't supporters of the war on Iraq who "exclusively" emphasized an "imminent" threat. Instead, it was opponents of the war like the Star Tribune editorial page who argued that war wasn't justified exclusively because there was no imminent threat of attack, so that U.N. inspections and diplomacy could have more time to work. The editorial board is taking its own simplistic argument for why the war wasn't justified and then accusing the supporters of war of making that argument!
"
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,214
126
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
My take on the article: more evidence there was no revival of the Iraqi nukes program, and more evidence the Bush administration tries to manipulate intelligence to get the answers they want. It also supports the belief that our efforts to contain Iraq were effective. Finally, it's a shabby way to treat someone who helped us.
My take on the article is that it confirms the fact that Saddam was trying to hide things from us, he was simply waiting for the UN, the US and the UK to "give up", lift the no-fly zones and cave in to the French and others to lift the sanctions. In the mean time he was content to have thousands of his people die while he lived high on the hog and to lead the inspecors around by the nose, playing his little game of hide and seek until they gave the all clear.
That's all well and good, but it's not how the Bush administration justified its unilateral invasion of Iraq.
It was certainly part of the reason.
Perhaps I missed a speech, but what I remember hearing was "weapons of mass destruction" and "mushroom cloud" and "al Qaeda" and "UAVs" and what an imminent danger Iraq posed to the U.S. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell, over and over, on news shows, in speeches, before the U.N., they hammered these themes relentlessly before the attack. I don't remember even one of them ever mentioning Hussein living high on the hog as a reason for invasion.
So you never heard Bush say "regime change" as one of the reasons to go into Iraq and then describe how Saddam was living compared to the citizens of Iraq, the new palaces, etc.

Odd, but you commented on this and were critical before you reconciled yourself to Bush's POV.

At first it was about regime change. When that wasn't going to fly, it became Saddam disarming. The curious moment was when Ari was asked during a press conference about the change in policy, and Ari said to the effect that if Saddam disarmed, that would be an indication that he was changing how his regime functioned, and that was regime change. No one bought it then. Well almost no one. It was about as laughable as "is, is".


Time after time the administration said Saddam had to disarm in order to prevent "serious consequences". Disarm. Not palaces. Not treatment of Iraqis. Disarmanent. That was the entire bill of goods at the time, and we knew what they had and where it was.

So we were told.
I understood our reasons to be all of that, not one or the other. Those were certainly reasons I personally considered when deciding whether I was for or against the war.

Indeed, and personally I had no use for Saddam and his palaces. We certainly agree that he was a worthless POS. No contraversy there. Completely unrelated to Iraq, I didnt shed a tear when Big Daddy Amin croaked. Saddam and he could have been best buds.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,214
126
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
My take on the article: more evidence there was no revival of the Iraqi nukes program, and more evidence the Bush administration tries to manipulate intelligence to get the answers they want. It also supports the belief that our efforts to contain Iraq were effective. Finally, it's a shabby way to treat someone who helped us.
My take on the article is that it confirms the fact that Saddam was trying to hide things from us, he was simply waiting for the UN, the US and the UK to "give up", lift the no-fly zones and cave in to the French and others to lift the sanctions. In the mean time he was content to have thousands of his people die while he lived high on the hog and to lead the inspecors around by the nose, playing his little game of hide and seek until they gave the all clear.
That's all well and good, but it's not how the Bush administration justified its unilateral invasion of Iraq.
It was certainly part of the reason.
Perhaps I missed a speech, but what I remember hearing was "weapons of mass destruction" and "mushroom cloud" and "al Qaeda" and "UAVs" and what an imminent danger Iraq posed to the U.S. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell, over and over, on news shows, in speeches, before the U.N., they hammered these themes relentlessly before the attack. I don't remember even one of them ever mentioning Hussein living high on the hog as a reason for invasion.
So you never heard Bush say "regime change" as one of the reasons to go into Iraq and then describe how Saddam was living compared to the citizens of Iraq, the new palaces, etc.

Odd, but you commented on this and were critical before you reconciled yourself to Bush's POV.

At first it was about regime change. When that wasn't going to fly, it became Saddam disarming. The curious moment was when Ari was asked during a press conference about the change in policy, and Ari said to the effect that if Saddam disarmed, that would be an indication that he was changing how his regime functioned, and that was regime change. No one bought it then. Well almost no one. It was about as laughable as "is, is".


Time after time the administration said Saddam had to disarm in order to prevent "serious consequences". Disarm. Not palaces. Not treatment of Iraqis. Disarmanent. That was the entire bill of goods at the time, and we knew what they had and where it was.

So we were told.


U.S. had more than one reason for war

"Your July 31 editorial asks about supporters of the war with Iraq: "Why did they focus almost exclusively on the supposedly imminent threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction?" The question is factually wrong.

President Bush never argued that the Iraq posed an "imminent" threat from weapons of mass destruction. Bush actually argued the opposite: that is, that Iraq needed to be dealt with before the threat was imminent. For example, Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union address: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

...
The irony is strong here. It clearly wasn't supporters of the war on Iraq who "exclusively" emphasized an "imminent" threat. Instead, it was opponents of the war like the Star Tribune editorial page who argued that war wasn't justified exclusively because there was no imminent threat of attack, so that U.N. inspections and diplomacy could have more time to work. The editorial board is taking its own simplistic argument for why the war wasn't justified and then accusing the supporters of war of making that argument!
"
The frightening thing is that the threat wasn't imminent, it was nonexistant. One day, maybe country X might be a threat, maybe, so we have to become the aggressor nation in fact to prevent someone else from doing that, maybe. Using that rationale, we had ought to go to war with everyone, because they too might maybe someday be a threat. Maybe.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
My take on the article: more evidence there was no revival of the Iraqi nukes program, and more evidence the Bush administration tries to manipulate intelligence to get the answers they want. It also supports the belief that our efforts to contain Iraq were effective. Finally, it's a shabby way to treat someone who helped us.
My take on the article is that it confirms the fact that Saddam was trying to hide things from us, he was simply waiting for the UN, the US and the UK to "give up", lift the no-fly zones and cave in to the French and others to lift the sanctions. In the mean time he was content to have thousands of his people die while he lived high on the hog and to lead the inspecors around by the nose, playing his little game of hide and seek until they gave the all clear.
That's all well and good, but it's not how the Bush administration justified its unilateral invasion of Iraq.
It was certainly part of the reason.
Perhaps I missed a speech, but what I remember hearing was "weapons of mass destruction" and "mushroom cloud" and "al Qaeda" and "UAVs" and what an imminent danger Iraq posed to the U.S. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell, over and over, on news shows, in speeches, before the U.N., they hammered these themes relentlessly before the attack. I don't remember even one of them ever mentioning Hussein living high on the hog as a reason for invasion.
So you never heard Bush say "regime change" as one of the reasons to go into Iraq and then describe how Saddam was living compared to the citizens of Iraq, the new palaces, etc.

Odd, but you commented on this and were critical before you reconciled yourself to Bush's POV.

At first it was about regime change. When that wasn't going to fly, it became Saddam disarming. The curious moment was when Ari was asked during a press conference about the change in policy, and Ari said to the effect that if Saddam disarmed, that would be an indication that he was changing how his regime functioned, and that was regime change. No one bought it then. Well almost no one. It was about as laughable as "is, is".


Time after time the administration said Saddam had to disarm in order to prevent "serious consequences". Disarm. Not palaces. Not treatment of Iraqis. Disarmanent. That was the entire bill of goods at the time, and we knew what they had and where it was.

So we were told.


U.S. had more than one reason for war

"Your July 31 editorial asks about supporters of the war with Iraq: "Why did they focus almost exclusively on the supposedly imminent threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction?" The question is factually wrong.

President Bush never argued that the Iraq posed an "imminent" threat from weapons of mass destruction. Bush actually argued the opposite: that is, that Iraq needed to be dealt with before the threat was imminent. For example, Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union address: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

...
The irony is strong here. It clearly wasn't supporters of the war on Iraq who "exclusively" emphasized an "imminent" threat. Instead, it was opponents of the war like the Star Tribune editorial page who argued that war wasn't justified exclusively because there was no imminent threat of attack, so that U.N. inspections and diplomacy could have more time to work. The editorial board is taking its own simplistic argument for why the war wasn't justified and then accusing the supporters of war of making that argument!
"
The frightening thing is that the threat wasn't imminent, it was nonexistant. One day, maybe country X might be a threat, maybe, so we have to become the aggressor nation in fact to prevent someone else from doing that, maybe. Using that rationale, we had ought to go to war with everyone, because they too might maybe someday be a threat. Maybe.
He'd already proven he was a threat. There was no 'maybe' about it.

This topic again grows tiresome.

 

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
Originally posted by: etech


U.S. had more than one reason for war

"Your July 31 editorial asks about supporters of the war with Iraq: "Why did they focus almost exclusively on the supposedly imminent threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction?" The question is factually wrong.

President Bush never argued that the Iraq posed an "imminent" threat from weapons of mass destruction. Bush actually argued the opposite: that is, that Iraq needed to be dealt with before the threat was imminent. For example, Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union address: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

...
The irony is strong here. It clearly wasn't supporters of the war on Iraq who "exclusively" emphasized an "imminent" threat. Instead, it was opponents of the war like the Star Tribune editorial page who argued that war wasn't justified exclusively because there was no imminent threat of attack, so that U.N. inspections and diplomacy could have more time to work. The editorial board is taking its own simplistic argument for why the war wasn't justified and then accusing the supporters of war of making that argument!
"
Oh really??
Here's Bush's official justification for starting war with Iraq:
Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
So what's the "continuing threat posed by Iraq??"
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Oh really??
Here's Bush's official justification for starting war with Iraq:
Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
So what's the "continuing threat posed by Iraq??"
You omitted the second part, equally damning for all those Bush apologists who try to pretend Bush didn't try to link Iraq to 9/11:
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
I'd say that's pretty clear.

 

Phuz

Diamond Member
Jul 15, 2000
4,349
0
0
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
My take on the article: more evidence there was no revival of the Iraqi nukes program, and more evidence the Bush administration tries to manipulate intelligence to get the answers they want. It also supports the belief that our efforts to contain Iraq were effective. Finally, it's a shabby way to treat someone who helped us.
My take on the article is that it confirms the fact that Saddam was trying to hide things from us, he was simply waiting for the UN, the US and the UK to "give up", lift the no-fly zones and cave in to the French and others to lift the sanctions. In the mean time he was content to have thousands of his people die while he lived high on the hog and to lead the inspecors around by the nose, playing his little game of hide and seek until they gave the all clear.
That's all well and good, but it's not how the Bush administration justified its unilateral invasion of Iraq.
It was certainly part of the reason.
Perhaps I missed a speech, but what I remember hearing was "weapons of mass destruction" and "mushroom cloud" and "al Qaeda" and "UAVs" and what an imminent danger Iraq posed to the U.S. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell, over and over, on news shows, in speeches, before the U.N., they hammered these themes relentlessly before the attack. I don't remember even one of them ever mentioning Hussein living high on the hog as a reason for invasion.
So you never heard Bush say "regime change" as one of the reasons to go into Iraq and then describe how Saddam was living compared to the citizens of Iraq, the new palaces, etc.

Odd, but you commented on this and were critical before you reconciled yourself to Bush's POV.

At first it was about regime change. When that wasn't going to fly, it became Saddam disarming. The curious moment was when Ari was asked during a press conference about the change in policy, and Ari said to the effect that if Saddam disarmed, that would be an indication that he was changing how his regime functioned, and that was regime change. No one bought it then. Well almost no one. It was about as laughable as "is, is".


Time after time the administration said Saddam had to disarm in order to prevent "serious consequences". Disarm. Not palaces. Not treatment of Iraqis. Disarmanent. That was the entire bill of goods at the time, and we knew what they had and where it was.

So we were told.


U.S. had more than one reason for war

"Your July 31 editorial asks about supporters of the war with Iraq: "Why did they focus almost exclusively on the supposedly imminent threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction?" The question is factually wrong.

President Bush never argued that the Iraq posed an "imminent" threat from weapons of mass destruction. Bush actually argued the opposite: that is, that Iraq needed to be dealt with before the threat was imminent. For example, Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union address: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

...
The irony is strong here. It clearly wasn't supporters of the war on Iraq who "exclusively" emphasized an "imminent" threat. Instead, it was opponents of the war like the Star Tribune editorial page who argued that war wasn't justified exclusively because there was no imminent threat of attack, so that U.N. inspections and diplomacy could have more time to work. The editorial board is taking its own simplistic argument for why the war wasn't justified and then accusing the supporters of war of making that argument!
"
The frightening thing is that the threat wasn't imminent, it was nonexistant. One day, maybe country X might be a threat, maybe, so we have to become the aggressor nation in fact to prevent someone else from doing that, maybe. Using that rationale, we had ought to go to war with everyone, because they too might maybe someday be a threat. Maybe.
He'd already proven he was a threat. There was no 'maybe' about it.

This topic again grows tiresome.
Oh, please. Everyone in the world is a THREAT. Get over it, accept the fact you can't control everyone who could potentially be a threat. There are many other dangers far more imminent that Saddam was. He's been under the world's eye since Desert Storm, he wasn't about to do anything rash.

 

phillyTIM

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2001
1,942
10
81
Bush just needed a quick, guaranteed victory to keep his legitimacy and war-on-terror afloat; who better than Saddam to be Bush's scapegoat in this farce.

It's ridiculous that the leader of THE world superpower still trying to sell a war, a half year after it happened. It's madness. But it just exhibits the sham for what it really was -- a sham.

I hope to God Americans wake up to this and vote Bush out in '04. If Bush gets reelected somehow, there really is something wrong in America here. And we'll be the butt of all the World's jokes.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Oh, please. Everyone in the world is a THREAT. Get over it, accept the fact you can't control everyone who could potentially be a threat. There are many other dangers far more imminent that Saddam was. He's been under the world's eye since Desert Storm, he wasn't about to do anything rash.
Everyone in the world is not a threat. You need to get over the fact that this country will act when it feels it needs to. Saddam was hardly under the worlds eye, he was under the US and Great Britains eye, while the rest of the world did nothing. We did the right thing, what we felt we had to do. Get over it.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
UQ, you of all people know the difference between the right thing and what people feel they must do. Even if we give Bushies the benefit of a doubt that deposing Saddam is the right thing to do (admittedly, I kinda support the position) . . . once you decide a goal must be accomplished there's the following question: what's the right way to do it? Bushies decided the right way MUST be their way regardless of the consequences. It's easy to defend the necessity of regime change . . . the modality leaves much to be desired.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
UQ, you of all people know the difference between the right thing and what people feel they must do. Even if we give Bushies the benefit of a doubt that deposing Saddam is the right thing to do (admittedly, I kinda support the position) . . . once you decide a goal must be accomplished there's the following question: what's the right way to do it? Bushies decided the right way MUST be their way regardless of the consequences. It's easy to defend the necessity of regime change . . . the modality leaves much to be desired.
You know I have never approved of the method they used. A bigger coalition should have been formed, I am not a fan of their 'megaphone diplomacy'. However, I still think we did the right thing.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
My take on the article: more evidence there was no revival of the Iraqi nukes program, and more evidence the Bush administration tries to manipulate intelligence to get the answers they want. It also supports the belief that our efforts to contain Iraq were effective. Finally, it's a shabby way to treat someone who helped us.
My take on the article is that it confirms the fact that Saddam was trying to hide things from us, he was simply waiting for the UN, the US and the UK to "give up", lift the no-fly zones and cave in to the French and others to lift the sanctions. In the mean time he was content to have thousands of his people die while he lived high on the hog and to lead the inspecors around by the nose, playing his little game of hide and seek until they gave the all clear.
That's all well and good, but it's not how the Bush administration justified its unilateral invasion of Iraq.
It was certainly part of the reason.
Perhaps I missed a speech, but what I remember hearing was "weapons of mass destruction" and "mushroom cloud" and "al Qaeda" and "UAVs" and what an imminent danger Iraq posed to the U.S. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell, over and over, on news shows, in speeches, before the U.N., they hammered these themes relentlessly before the attack. I don't remember even one of them ever mentioning Hussein living high on the hog as a reason for invasion.
So you never heard Bush say "regime change" as one of the reasons to go into Iraq and then describe how Saddam was living compared to the citizens of Iraq, the new palaces, etc.
Yes but that isn't what convinced the American Public to support the Invasion/occupation of Iraq.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
UQ - <<We did the right thing, what we felt we had to do.>>

The first part is subjective. The second part is true I guess. Although it might be more accurate to replace 'felt we had' with 'wanted'.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY