Will Bush offer some new unrefutable infomation to justify war at his State of the Union?

[glenn1]

Sure seems like this would be a good time for Bush to present whatever secret intel he has about Iraq that justifies the conflict, along the lines of Kennedy's revealing the U2 photos during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Question: Does Bush have the goods on Iraq that he's not sharing for whatever security/political reasons, and if he does, will he lay that card on the table during the State of the Union speech?

 

[sandorski]

He's been dangling the carrot of "irrefutable proof" since Sept, I doubt he has any, but time will tell.

 

[BatmanNate]

Originally posted by: sandorski
He's been dangling the carrot of "irrefutable proof" since Sept, I doubt he has any, but time will tell.

He's had ample time to fabricate some.

 

[Tominator]

Jim Talent, Republican from Missouri, has said he saw the 'secret' intel and it is indeed damning for Saddam. He is on the Armed Servicies Committee.

The State of the Union Address is NOT the time to reveal this imho.

 

[markuskidd]

The time to reveal it is when it's too late for anyone to question it then? (Read: once our forces are already on the ground in Iraq)

 

[XZeroII]

There is so much circumstantial evidence that you almost don't need 100% proof. Iraq isn't cooporating with inspectors. They are still restricting access and such to sensative areas. That alone justifies going in there and taking a look by force. They also have a history of building WMD.

 

[ElFenix]

probably not... revealing your info is a good way to reveal your source.

 

[markuskidd]

I would be fine with taking a look by force. That shouldn't require 50,000 though.

 

[LH]

Its been said/rumored the state of the union address will focus on domestic issues, with some, but not much mention on foreign issues.

 

[glenn1]

probably not... revealing your info is a good way to reveal your source.

I know that's a concern, however I think this may be one of those times where the loss of the intel source is worth the political advantage that revealing the intel gives.

 

[markuskidd]

There's no point in having intel if you can't use it. It's been plenty long enough for them to have taken whatever precautions are necessary.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
There is so much circumstantial evidence that you almost don't need 100% proof. Iraq isn't cooporating with inspectors. They are still restricting access and such to sensative areas. That alone justifies going in there and taking a look by force. They also have a history of building WMD.

But don't you think that taking military action for breaking UN resolutions should require approval from the UN?

 

[dullard]

Honestly Iraq has had WMD. But that doesn't mean we should attack them just since they had them at one point in time.

Consider this case:
1) Iraq had WMD at one time.
2) Bush knows he had them - but has no proof that he still has them.
3) Lets suppose Iraq gave all the WMD to the terrorist groups.
Now imagine the result of attacking:
4) We attack Iraq to get the WMD that he doesn't have.
5) That attack kills many people on both sides, and gets us no where since Iraq no longer has them.
6) We anger tons of countries (muslim countries, and countries like Canada/France/Germany).
7) We anger the terrorists who use the WMD on the US.

Far fetched? Possibly. But isn't that the reason claimed for attacking Iraq is to prevent #3 from happening? What if it already occured?

In my opinion we should first stop the terrorist groups and see if they have the WMD before going after Iraq. We still haven't got Bin Laden.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: markuskidd
There's no point in having intel if you can't use it. It's been plenty long enough for them to have taken whatever precautions are necessary.

You ever arranged those precautions? Do you know what they would be? If you don't have the experience to back up your blind guess (which is all your statement is), then please don't claim it as fact.

ZV

 

[markuskidd]

I didn't claim it as a fact.

 

[JellyBaby]

I want to see compelling evidence Iraq is a threat to the United States. If that is so, then war is a no-brainer.

If instead I see compelling evidence Iraq is a potential, non-specific threat to someone, somewhere then I can't justify war but I can understand how others may feel differently.

 

[XZeroII]

Zenmervolt: Haha, took me awhile to figure out where your sig quote came from, but that's good. Short Circuit

 

[charrison]

The cards will be played when intel positions are safe. It will not be long from now, but I doubt the closing of SOTU will be "the bombings begin in 5 minutes".

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

He's going to reveal that Saddam Hussein is actually none-other than Osama bin Laden. His irrefutable evidence: no one has ever seen the two at the same place at the same time.

 

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: dullard
Honestly Iraq has had WMD. But that doesn't mean we should attack them just since they had them at one point in time.

Consider this case:
1) Iraq had WMD at one time.
2) Bush knows he had them - but has no proof that he still has them.
3) Lets suppose Iraq gave all the WMD to the terrorist groups.
Now imagine the result of attacking:
4) We attack Iraq to get the WMD that he doesn't have.
5) That attack kills many people on both sides, and gets us no where since Iraq no longer has them.
6) We anger tons of countries (muslim countries, and countries like Canada/France/Germany).
7) We anger the terrorists who use the WMD on the US.

Far fetched? Possibly. But isn't that the reason claimed for attacking Iraq is to prevent #3 from happening? What if it already occured?

In my opinion we should first stop the terrorist groups and see if they have the WMD before going after Iraq. We still haven't got Bin Laden.

It is documented he has WMDs measured in TONS! Where did they go? Bush did not make anything up.

Iraq has threatened the US invasion force with WMDs within the last month. If they DO NOT have them, why threaten to USE them?

You have no points to make.

No more delays. No more inspections. NO MORE SADDAM!

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
I want to see compelling evidence Iraq is a threat to the United States. If that is so, then war is a no-brainer.

If it's shown the anthrax attacks originated from Iraq, would that be enough for you?

 

[justint]

Originally posted by: X-Man

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
I want to see compelling evidence Iraq is a threat to the United States. If that is so, then war is a no-brainer.

If it's shown the anthrax attacks originated from Iraq, would that be enough for you?

Where do people get this stuff??? The Anthrax used in those attacks came from right here in the US, from USAMRID at Ft. Detrick in MD. They just can't prove which of the people there did it. Iraq had a totally different less advanced strain.

 

[etech]

I'm curious. How many people posting in this thread have actually taken the time to read UN Resolution 1441?

From what I have seen, not very many.

To commit a material breach of that resolution all Iraq has to do is not reveal all of the banned weapons that they have in the declaration they have made or not cooperate fully and proactively with the inspectors.

That's it. A weapon does not even have to be found for Iraq to be in breach.

Read the resolution.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: etech
I'm curious. How many people posting in this thread have actually taken the time to read UN Resolution 1441?

From what I have seen, not very many.

To commit a material breach of that resolution all Iraq has to do is not reveal all of the banned weapons that they have in the declaration they have made or not cooperate fully and proactively with the inspectors.

That's it. A weapon does not even have to be found for Iraq to be in breach.

Read the resolution.

All very true, and hardly a reason to send a bunch of our guys to kill and be killed without presenting better evidence showing why we should do it now, along with a reasonable plan for what we can expect, and what we'll do, once it's over.

 

[etech]

You are right Harvey, the time to do it is not now. It was anytime in the past twelve years of Saddam's lies and deceptions, that was the time to do it.