No WMD
- Thread starter shortalias
- Start date
It will also say that Saddam Hussein mounted a huge programme to deceive and hinder the work of United Nations weapons inspectors, he said.
Dupe of the century?
Dupe of the century?
kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 31,501
- 47,960
- 136
I'll wait for the translation. Anyone here speak 'shroom?
If this is what the official word is gonna look like, then I agree, he has been punked. *cough* Cheney *cough*
Cool, this means we're almost assured of getting a president who can speak normally!
What I'm still so amazed about is that there seem to be no consequences for any of those people stating it as a fact that Iraq had massive stockpiles of wmd's and using that to go to war. What sortof a society do we live in???
Americans live through the television as passsive viewers. They have been trained to accept. After years of prison even a lion will not leave his cage.
CaptnKirk
Lifer
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
Washington Post - Richard Cohen
Editorial Clip:
If there is such a thing as facts on the ground, then there ought to be such a thing as facts in the air. Those, after all, are the ones President Bush offered in his speech to the United Nations -- a series of dubious assertions attempting to show that the world is a better place because America went to war in Iraq. Who can blame him? The facts on the ground are so awful.
By that I don't mean the sloppy and incredibly expensive occupation of Iraq. That will straighten itself out -- later than we want and at a greater cost in lives and money than we want. In the end, though, Iraq will not be Vietnam, because, above all, most of its people have nothing to gain from anti-American terrorism.
What's striking about Bush's speech is that he proceeded as if nothing has changed. He began, as he did a year ago, with the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 and proceeded from there. He was back in the war against terrorism, of which Iraq was going to be the key battle. But it is a year later, Iraq has fallen -- and yet terrorism persists.
Bush pressed on. He mentioned more facts in the air -- Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, of which not one has been found. He mentioned a Middle East where "people are safer because an unstable aggressor has been removed from power" -- adding, preposterously, that the world is a far better place today "because an ally of terror has fallen." In Jerusalem, in Jakarta -- in any of the places Bush mentioned -- no one can possibly believe that. Maybe even Bush doesn't.
The facts on the ground reproach him. The Middle East peace plan -- the so-called road map -- has collapsed. The defeat of Iraq has in no way intimidated Hamas, Islamic Jihad or, to hear the Israelis tell it, Yasser Arafat himself.
Iran is believed to be developing a nuclear weapon. North Korea already probably has several and flamboyantly proclaims a determination to have even more. Both countries seem undeterred by the splendid victory in Iraq and the aerated facts Bush cited in his U.N. address. Iraq is free and Hussein is gone. But all the rest is a souffle of wishes and assertions, deflated by reality.
The man who strode to the U.N. rostrum seemed to know that. He appeared empty, leeched of his former passion and conviction. Events have conspired against him. His once infallible aides have turned out to be awfully fallible. They botched the aftermath of the war and they were wrong about weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi links to al Qaeda. They ought to be fired, but Bush would have to admit he was misled -- and he will not do that.
The oddest document in the archives today is the congressional resolution that the White House sought authorizing war in Iraq. It is less than a year old, but already it seems from another era. It is alarmist, written in the most purple of prose, saying of Iraq that it "poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States." It says Iraq is "supporting and harboring terrorist organizations," specifically naming al Qaeda. As a historical document it is rich in irony. As a cause for war, it is a farce.
Bush's problem is that he has been repeatedly reprimanded by events. Most -- not all, mind you -- of his reasons for the war have proved untrue. Paul Wolfowitz, who ventured to New York earlier in the week, gave three reasons for the war at a forum sponsored by the New Yorker magazine: WMD, links to terrorism and wholesale human rights abuse.
Only the last is true -- and true enough to give war supporters such as myself reason for succor. All the rest is either a mistake or an exaggeration -- the former by intelligence agencies, the latter by imagineers such as Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney.
At the United Nations, Bush said some things worth saying. He reminded the delegates that Saddam Hussein ignored one resolution after another. He reminded them that Hussein was a beast. He might have reminded the French that they were unnecessarily obstructionist, but he kept his tongue.
An American president can always lead, and much of the world must necessarily follow. But the pugnacious arrogance of a year ago -- a bristling unilateralism -- has made Bush's task harder. His predictions -- WMD discoveries, a new order in the Middle East, humbled rogue nations -- have all proved so far to be false. The facts on the ground contradict the facts in the air -- and Bush runs after them like a child chasing a balloon.
Editorial Clip:
If there is such a thing as facts on the ground, then there ought to be such a thing as facts in the air. Those, after all, are the ones President Bush offered in his speech to the United Nations -- a series of dubious assertions attempting to show that the world is a better place because America went to war in Iraq. Who can blame him? The facts on the ground are so awful.
By that I don't mean the sloppy and incredibly expensive occupation of Iraq. That will straighten itself out -- later than we want and at a greater cost in lives and money than we want. In the end, though, Iraq will not be Vietnam, because, above all, most of its people have nothing to gain from anti-American terrorism.
What's striking about Bush's speech is that he proceeded as if nothing has changed. He began, as he did a year ago, with the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 and proceeded from there. He was back in the war against terrorism, of which Iraq was going to be the key battle. But it is a year later, Iraq has fallen -- and yet terrorism persists.
Bush pressed on. He mentioned more facts in the air -- Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, of which not one has been found. He mentioned a Middle East where "people are safer because an unstable aggressor has been removed from power" -- adding, preposterously, that the world is a far better place today "because an ally of terror has fallen." In Jerusalem, in Jakarta -- in any of the places Bush mentioned -- no one can possibly believe that. Maybe even Bush doesn't.
The facts on the ground reproach him. The Middle East peace plan -- the so-called road map -- has collapsed. The defeat of Iraq has in no way intimidated Hamas, Islamic Jihad or, to hear the Israelis tell it, Yasser Arafat himself.
Iran is believed to be developing a nuclear weapon. North Korea already probably has several and flamboyantly proclaims a determination to have even more. Both countries seem undeterred by the splendid victory in Iraq and the aerated facts Bush cited in his U.N. address. Iraq is free and Hussein is gone. But all the rest is a souffle of wishes and assertions, deflated by reality.
The man who strode to the U.N. rostrum seemed to know that. He appeared empty, leeched of his former passion and conviction. Events have conspired against him. His once infallible aides have turned out to be awfully fallible. They botched the aftermath of the war and they were wrong about weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi links to al Qaeda. They ought to be fired, but Bush would have to admit he was misled -- and he will not do that.
The oddest document in the archives today is the congressional resolution that the White House sought authorizing war in Iraq. It is less than a year old, but already it seems from another era. It is alarmist, written in the most purple of prose, saying of Iraq that it "poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States." It says Iraq is "supporting and harboring terrorist organizations," specifically naming al Qaeda. As a historical document it is rich in irony. As a cause for war, it is a farce.
Bush's problem is that he has been repeatedly reprimanded by events. Most -- not all, mind you -- of his reasons for the war have proved untrue. Paul Wolfowitz, who ventured to New York earlier in the week, gave three reasons for the war at a forum sponsored by the New Yorker magazine: WMD, links to terrorism and wholesale human rights abuse.
Only the last is true -- and true enough to give war supporters such as myself reason for succor. All the rest is either a mistake or an exaggeration -- the former by intelligence agencies, the latter by imagineers such as Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney.
At the United Nations, Bush said some things worth saying. He reminded the delegates that Saddam Hussein ignored one resolution after another. He reminded them that Hussein was a beast. He might have reminded the French that they were unnecessarily obstructionist, but he kept his tongue.
An American president can always lead, and much of the world must necessarily follow. But the pugnacious arrogance of a year ago -- a bristling unilateralism -- has made Bush's task harder. His predictions -- WMD discoveries, a new order in the Middle East, humbled rogue nations -- have all proved so far to be false. The facts on the ground contradict the facts in the air -- and Bush runs after them like a child chasing a balloon.
well, if you had the kind of definite, priviledged insider information the u.n. and international intelligences lacked before the campaign started, why
didn't you share it with the world ?
if you push that sarcasm aside to make room for some more: the only entity you could've trusted to tell you the truth was saddam hussein. he was
on the tellie regularly, gave interviews, and had his ba'ath slaves all make the same denials. who believed them then ?
from what i can tell, the most glaring deficit in the ba'ath party machine was the lack of one critical reading material: aesop.
make mental note: add richard cohen to list of fool doomsayers.
there has been an effort here recently to show the under-reported progress and notable counter-opinion against the ideological carping
that we find in the slanted media. most importantly is to note the source of these links. none of them reek of the partisanship you find with
many of the negative spin-meisters. in fact, one of the sources happens to be the iraqi people themselves. another is the bbc. and i hope
nobody regards cnn as sub-section of bushie's propaganda machine.
u.s. congressional group: press lants iraq war
iraqis angry with prevailing anti-u.s.arab opinion
majority of iraqis believe country will better without saddam
Still buying into the farce that war was to free the Iraqi people or that killing them to free them was the way to do it?
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
syzygys points:
Re Czar:
"well, if you had the kind of definite, priviledged insider information the u.n. and international intelligences lacked before the campaign started, why
didn't you share it with the world ? "
Intel agencies had grave doubts about this. Bush would have none of it. Witness state department and defense flaps mixed in with CIA reports which were far less certain, before Tenet (a friend of the family Bush) got hold of them. Many of us here pointed this out. Like Bush, you discount it.
Also, Czar did not start a war. Bush did. A war ought to require a positive proof, not be waged because of a lack of it. Your morals may vary.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"If you push that sarcasm aside to make room for some more: the only entity you could've trusted to tell you the truth was saddam hussein. he was
on the tellie regularly, gave interviews, and had his ba'ath slaves all make the same denials. who believed them then ? "
Find where Czar said he believed Saddam. We have a search function. Find it? Nope. Can't fault the message, then deride the messenger. So sad you are filled with such hate. Perhaps something in your upbringing. Who can say? Nevertheless, Czar is blameless here. Next.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"from what i can tell, the most glaring deficit in the ba'ath party machine was the lack of one critical reading material: aesop."
They had more problems than that, and that is Bush reading Aesop, but he never gets the moral.
Thanks for your participation.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Re Czar:
"well, if you had the kind of definite, priviledged insider information the u.n. and international intelligences lacked before the campaign started, why
didn't you share it with the world ? "
Intel agencies had grave doubts about this. Bush would have none of it. Witness state department and defense flaps mixed in with CIA reports which were far less certain, before Tenet (a friend of the family Bush) got hold of them. Many of us here pointed this out. Like Bush, you discount it.
Also, Czar did not start a war. Bush did. A war ought to require a positive proof, not be waged because of a lack of it. Your morals may vary.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"If you push that sarcasm aside to make room for some more: the only entity you could've trusted to tell you the truth was saddam hussein. he was
on the tellie regularly, gave interviews, and had his ba'ath slaves all make the same denials. who believed them then ? "
Find where Czar said he believed Saddam. We have a search function. Find it? Nope. Can't fault the message, then deride the messenger. So sad you are filled with such hate. Perhaps something in your upbringing. Who can say? Nevertheless, Czar is blameless here. Next.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"from what i can tell, the most glaring deficit in the ba'ath party machine was the lack of one critical reading material: aesop."
They had more problems than that, and that is Bush reading Aesop, but he never gets the moral.
Thanks for your participation.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Before:
"I have absolutely no doubt that WMD will be found."
"BS! There IS WMD over there. Iraq is the size of California...give it time."
"Iraqi scientists told us there are WMD. Take that."
"We have to attack NOW! The next smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud!"
"Are you blind? Look at all the evidence we have. There ARE WMD."
"Bush has solid evidence of the existence of WMD."
Now:
"Well everybody else thought there were WMD, too."
"I have absolutely no doubt that WMD will be found."
"BS! There IS WMD over there. Iraq is the size of California...give it time."
"Iraqi scientists told us there are WMD. Take that."
"We have to attack NOW! The next smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud!"
"Are you blind? Look at all the evidence we have. There ARE WMD."
"Bush has solid evidence of the existence of WMD."
Now:
"Well everybody else thought there were WMD, too."
kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 31,501
- 47,960
- 136
Your attempt to put all those who didn't share your opinon in one group sounds a wee bit pompous. While there were some who fervently believed Bush could do no wrong, do not confuse the "let's wait and see" crowd with the dire-hard partisan apologists. I'd like to add that Washington's official take on it still has yet to be released.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
I think there are those who do differ by degree. Die hards, as you say are beyond redemption, at least by mere mortals. The other crowd troubles me though. Consider that quite claims were made -quite forcefully- that Saddam possed WMDs, we knew what, where, and how they came to be. I don't think you need me to link to Powells UN presentations or Rumsfelds press conferences to know that to be true. Now if I were a Bush supporter based on what I was told, rather than party ideology, I would want to know where they are. Now. Not for some "final" version. WMD X must have been at location Y. Ok, lets go see. Ok, where is it? Why do we need a committee to give a report? The administration says its there. Ok show me. No one can. People say Saddam hid them during the war. Why on earth would he hide the weapons that he could use in his defense? Because if he did not, maybe the US would turn around in mid-march? No, he knew they were coming. Everyone knew it. He had nothing to lose. Perhaps his humanity forbade the use of them being used in a war?
You see, a "final" report ought not to show whether they exist, but how many and where, and what their primary purpose was (aggressive or defensive), if they existed with the certanty claimed.
Yet, who are those non diehards who are asking, no demanding, answers to those questions? Why are they satisfied with the nothing they are given?
kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 31,501
- 47,960
- 136
No, I didn't say that. I noted the distinction between the two groups, you supplied the rest. Don't try to put words in my mouth.
I consider myself more of an anti-Saddam type rather than a Bush supporter, always have. I think we can agree that Bush and his people have jumped around on this issue - there is certainly a sizeable amount of disagreement within the CIA, Pentagon, and State Dept. on the intelligence involved. One thing these politicans know is that at some point there will be a review of the events and of their performance. To that end, a final, accountable document should be released - one that won't allow assheads like Cheney to get away with a "I mis-spoke." A physical document is simply worth more than the statements of officials that can simply be recanted.
A better question might be, Why would Saddam give his military permission to use chem/bio weapons in the coming invasion? We're about to be attacked - feel free to use the weapons we don't have. I shouldn't have to explain the uselessness of an immobile weapons system on the modern battlefield, and from day one I've taken exception to this attitude from others that the WMD would be sitting, nicely-wrapped, on the front step of a palace or factory, ready for pickup upon the arrival of the Marines. Saddam was cold, calculating, brutal...many things, but not stupid. It would be in his best interest if doubtful eyes remained on the US. Why not facilitate it, especially when he had plenty of warning we were coming?
Next you'll be citing Hitler or Himmler's 'compassion' right? The former inhabitants of Halabja could have used some of that humanity.
I don't disagree really, my position is, let's give Bush the opportunity to officially put the noose around his own neck. The way I see it, we have a hawkish administration getting tired of a regime defying their UN-mandated obligations and fueling regional conflict so they gleefully accept intelligence from Iraqi sources who are eager to rid themselves of the maniac in power. They used the buzzword "nuclear' to gain the support they needed to act, all the while knowing they wouldn't find nukes but hoped the chem/bio stuff that was unaccounted for would show up. I'm sure the possibility of setting up Iraq as an alternate source from Saudi oil appealed to them as well.
Who knows... so long as Bush is thrown out of the White House I'm happy. A president's religious affiliation should never merge with his responsibilities in office.
Perhaps Bush can wait just long enough to release the "official WMD report" that he's voted out in Nov 2004. Now, that would be perfect timing.
"Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt," Clinton told the Senate the day she announced her support for the war.
She recalled that after Saddam threw U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq in 1998, "President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets."
Citing intelligence that predated the Bush administration, she explained, "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program."
"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons," the top Democrat declared.
A month after the vote, Sen. Clinton was still insisting that Iraq had stockpiles of WMDs, and even warned that Saddam might soon go nuclear.
"There's a very clear history and intention of not only building stockpiles and adding to what they already have of biological and chemical weaponry, but attempting to obtain nuclear capacity," she told MSNBC's Chris Matthews.
"And when I talked to the AEI people, you know the Atomic Energy Institute people and the like, and I said, well, what do you mean? How far are we away from that? They said, you know, six months to seven years. Six months is a very short time period."
She recalled that after Saddam threw U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq in 1998, "President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets."
Citing intelligence that predated the Bush administration, she explained, "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program."
"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons," the top Democrat declared.
A month after the vote, Sen. Clinton was still insisting that Iraq had stockpiles of WMDs, and even warned that Saddam might soon go nuclear.
"There's a very clear history and intention of not only building stockpiles and adding to what they already have of biological and chemical weaponry, but attempting to obtain nuclear capacity," she told MSNBC's Chris Matthews.
"And when I talked to the AEI people, you know the Atomic Energy Institute people and the like, and I said, well, what do you mean? How far are we away from that? They said, you know, six months to seven years. Six months is a very short time period."
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Gee, Clinton didnt get it right. Imagine that. I guess it was a good thing he didnt get us into a WAR over it.
sMiLeYz
Platinum Member
- Feb 3, 2003
- 2,696
- 0
- 76
CLINTON DIDN'T POUR HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF OUR TAX PAYER MONEY IN A JOBLESS ECONOMY WITH A LOOMING 600 BILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT; SO OUR SOLDIERS COULD RISK THEIR LIVES IN IRAQ SO HIS VICE PRESIDENT COULD GIVE HALLIBURTON A FAT CONTRACT TO EXTRACT IRAQ OIL; MEANWHILE THE REST OF THE WORLD HATES OUR GUTS AND TERRORISTS KEEP ATTACKING US OVER THERE.
Get a clue people.
Get a clue people.
I think we should have left saddam in power, instead of us killing a few we could have sat back and watched saddam kill them all.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
sMiLeYz
Platinum Member
- Feb 3, 2003
- 2,696
- 0
- 76
Please, the Iraqi's that were killed... stayed dead whether we invaded or not. And what sense would it be for Saddam to kill his entire population. Don't pull that pretend bleeding heart liberal crap with us, you're not even good at it.
And guess what... 7000 Iraqi's died during our campaign and they're still dying along with our troops. We don't see you crying about that do we?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter