NationStates Jolt Archive

January 23, 2003 "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. . . . He presents a particularly grievous threat. . . . The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."

Now you're probably thinking this quote came from President Bush in the midst of his preparation for war against Iraq. Well I have to regretfully inform you that this quote came from John Kerry himself. I got this quote from a Cal Thomas article entitled "The Convention Cover-Up" on www.townhall.com .

Here is another quote from Kerry found in the same article:
October 9, 2002 "I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Please stop the conspiracy theories, the Senate Intel committee had access to the exact same intelligence as the Bush administration and yet they agreed with the President.

Here are some quotes from Slick Willy himself, also pulled from the Thomas article:
February 4, 1998 "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

February 17, 1998 "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

Looks like Bill Clinton believed that Iraq was a serious threat back in '98, its too bad he wasn't serious about actually dealing with it. If my memory serves me correctly, I believe that there was a certain scandal involving an intern at the time of these quotes. Clinton was willing to say anything to divert attention away from that.

I seriously hope that Bush can successfully confront Kerry on this and his many other flip-flops in the debates, because if he does, then Kerry will be destroyed.

Good post. Kerry was NO different than anyone else who had access to the intelligence that Bush was given. What makes Kerry more unbelieveable is that he was on the intelligence committee and saw the intel BEFORE Bush did. For him to now decry that Bush acted without proper information is just a joke. :rolleyes:

Please stop the conspiracy theories, the Senate Intel committee had access to the exact same intelligence as the Bush administration and yet they agreed with the President.


Well, that of course certainly explains why the CIA and Bush both refused to hand over notes on the private briefings provided to the President.... it's because there is nothing in there....

From the current position - We'll never know will we? But you claiming it as fact is not a fully supported position. The fact that they feel the need to withhold this information certainly does give one pause to think though.


Looks like Bill Clinton believed that Iraq was a serious threat back in '98, its too bad he wasn't serious about actually dealing with it. If my memory serves me correctly, I believe that there was a certain scandal involving an intern at the time of these quotes. Clinton was willing to say anything to divert attention away from that.


Yes, that is EXACTLY what the Republicans said when he tried to assassinate Bin Laden. They said that it wasn't a serious endeavour and was just an attempt to distract the world from what was clearly more important - his penis. You can't have it both ways. The right criticised him for trying when he did, and then tried to use their majority in the houses of government to ensure that he did not continue with those efforts, and now he is also blamed for not doing enough - despite their objections at the time to what little he tried to do. Hypocrites.

As to what he did with Saddam - he contained the threat. He also pulled the UN inspectors out in order to allow him to bomb a few choice targets. He did not expend 100+ Billion dollars and so many lives as his first choice in how to contain the threat.

Frankly, I have a lot of criticism on how Clinto handled Iraq, including his own violations of the UN resolutions that could have helped solve the issue. Unlike some people here though, I don't go under this assinine assumption that because Clinton screwed up that it is somehow impossible for GW to.


I seriously hope that Bush can successfully confront Kerry on this and his many other flip-flops in the debates, because if he does, then Kerry will be destroyed.

Besides the fact that trying to hold Clinton's errors against Kerry is rediculous, the fact is that Bush has a large litany of Flip flops of his own to defend, including his refusal to fully fund his own No Child Left Behind act and a number of other election promises broken.

If that is his only line of fire he will wind up looking like a hypocrite.

If Bush had bad intel, why isn't he reforming the CIA? Why isn't he getting the names of the Intelligence agents who came up with this faulty info? Why isn't there any change in the CIA?

If Bush had bad intel, why isn't he reforming the CIA? Why isn't he getting the names of the Intelligence agents who came up with this faulty info? Why isn't there any change in the CIA?

Then why are the British, French, German, Isreali AND Russians not doing the same. They ALL believed and reported the SAME thing.

Knowing this, what would YOU do if every intelligence service was telling you about the threat and its imminence?

Do you have sources for these quotes outside of a Cal Thomas article, or is this more "I read it on the Internet, so it must be true!" rhetoric?

That's what I thought.

:rolleyes:

If Bush had bad intel, why isn't he reforming the CIA? Why isn't he getting the names of the Intelligence agents who came up with this faulty info? Why isn't there any change in the CIA?

How do you know that he is not? You know that a lot of decisions that our leaders make go on behind closed doors and are not subject to public notice and debate? Didn't the Director of Intelligence step down about a month ago? Oh, and by the way, the CIA - they're spies. What the organization is doing to change or reorganize should be kept secret...because they're spies.

If Bush had bad intel, why isn't he reforming the CIA? Why isn't he getting the names of the Intelligence agents who came up with this faulty info? Why isn't there any change in the CIA?

Any attempt to make a huge reform in the intelligence community would be misguided in the middle of an election year. Any changes would be shortsighted and would end up having unintended consequences.

Besides the fact that trying to hold Clinton's errors against Kerry is rediculous

I never linked Kerry and Clinton, what I am trying to say is that many Democrats are trying to act like Iraq was no real imminent threat but what they said before the war is contradictory to what they are saying now. Besides the discussion is about the Democrats and not on the Republicans.

Then why are the British, French, German, Isreali AND Russians not doing the same. They ALL believed and reported the SAME thing.

Knowing this, what would YOU do if every intelligence service was telling you about the threat and its imminence?

Actually, Chirac and Schroeder were both VERY clear that while they believed that Saddam probably still had WMD, they did not have firm enough proof of this to warrant a war.

It was kinda why they were not voting for the UN resolution - remember? And why all of the French-bashing, "old europe" cracks, and other childishness not normally associated with mature leadership came about?


Nice try at historical revision though.

Then why are the British, French, German, Isreali AND Russians not doing the same. They ALL believed and reported the SAME thing.

Knowing this, what would YOU do if every intelligence service was telling you about the threat and its imminence?
That is a good question; why aren't countries around the world scrutinizing their intelligence agencies? Why are intelligence allowed to just run around and make wild claims and recieve no punishment when proved wrong? And can you get me a source that says French and German intel was saying the same thing? Surely they had a good reason for being opposed to the war...

And to answer the question about what I would do: I would prepare to defend my country. Defense is perfectly justifiable by the UN Charter. The UN Charter also makes provisions for launching a war on a country who has attacked you. Also, if terrorists attacked us from Iraq or using Iraq's WMDs then we'd just attack it in the same way we did Afghanistan. In fact, we'd probably have more global support, wouldn't we?

the quote's in the original post are everywhere on the Internet and can not be disputed by credible person.


Except for Zepp and Steph of course. :)

Do you have sources for these quotes outside of a Cal Thomas article, or is this more "I read it on the Internet, so it must be true!" rhetoric?

That's what I thought.

:rolleyes:
i rember seeing both on the news. so ether you are to young or to stupid to rember. do your own home work and look it up your self. that is the only way you may belive it.

Any attempt to make a huge reform in the intelligence community would be misguided in the middle of an election year. Any changes would be shortsighted and would end up having unintended consequences.


Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggghhhht. In a war against a group that neccessetates accurate intelligence being a paramount requirement for success - it is far better to hold off for political considerations. I'm sure the families of any that might die if another attack occurs before it is politically expedient to fix what is broken will be satisfied with that response.

I never linked Kerry and Clinton, what I am trying to say is that many Democrats are trying to act like Iraq was no real imminent threat but what they said before the war is contradictory to what they are saying now. Besides the discussion is about the Democrats and not on the Republicans.

You dedicated half of your post to Clinton, and then ended with a statement to the effect that Kerry had a lot to answer for. That is missleading. It is also a nice job of trying to shift the blame for this collosal fuck-up to the party that did NOT declare the war.

the quote's in the original post are everywhere on the Internet and can not be disputed by credible person.


Except for Zepp and Steph of course. :)

Excuse me?

Since when did I dispute the quotes?

the vote passed the Senate about 98-2 Kerry voted for it. To say that he didn't declare war is factually inaccurate.

i rember seeing both on the news. so ether you are to young or to stupid to rember. do your own home work and look it up your self. that is the only way you may belive it.

Too young? Kiddo, I remember the Carter administration.
Too stupid? Aye, possibly, but I believe it is up to the originator to provide more information to back their cause. Going on one person's word may be enough for you, but not for the rest of us.

That is a good question; why aren't countries around the world scrutinizing their intelligence agencies? Why are intelligence allowed to just run around and make wild claims and recieve no punishment when proved wrong? And can you get me a source that says French and German intel was saying the same thing? Surely they had a good reason for being opposed to the war...

And to answer the question about what I would do: I would prepare to defend my country. Defense is perfectly justifiable by the UN Charter. The UN Charter also makes provisions for launching a war on a country who has attacked you. Also, if terrorists attacked us from Iraq or using Iraq's WMDs then we'd just attack it in the same way we did Afghanistan. In fact, we'd probably have more global support, wouldn't we?

I don't know that they are not scrutinizing their intel communities.

Defense is certainly justifiable and here is another question....

If you believe that someone is going to attack you, do you not have the right to strike first? Or do you have to sustain a blow before you can react to the threat. I caveat that with this...

Had the US known that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor in advance, would we not have been justified in striking them first to prevent the attack?

the vote passed the Senate about 98-2 Kerry voted for it. To say that he didn't declare war is factually inaccurate.
If Kerry had the same info as the American public and if Bush had the same info too and really did honestly believe that Iraq had WMDs, then of course he would vote for it...who wouldn't? The thing is, Iraq didn't have WMDs and Bush isn't doing anything about fixing his intel...which he should...

Do you have sources for these quotes outside of a Cal Thomas article, or is this more "I read it on the Internet, so it must be true!" rhetoric?

Cal Thomas is a very respected journalist with is own show on the Fox News Channel. His columns appear in many newspapers around the country and he is factual in everything he writes, unlike the New York Times. If he does make a mistake he quickly corrects himself also unlike the so-called Newspaper of Record.

I don't know that they are not scrutinizing their intel communities.

Defense is certainly justifiable and here is another question....

If you believe that someone is going to attack you, do you not have the right to strike first? Or do you have to sustain a blow before you can react to the threat. I caveat that with this...

Had the US known that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor in advance, would we not have been justified in striking them first to prevent the attack?
I don't think offense is the only defense although it can sometimes be a good one...
Had the US known the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor, they'd have prepared a defense. If you don't believe me, think about The Battle at Midway.

I don't know that they are not scrutinizing their intel communities.

Defense is certainly justifiable and here is another question....

If you believe that someone is going to attack you, do you not have the right to strike first? Or do you have to sustain a blow before you can react to the threat. I caveat that with this...

Had the US known that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor in advance, would we not have been justified in striking them first to prevent the attack?
Had the INS known that illegal aliens would be hijacking planes and flying them into buildings, they surely would have taken an "offense" because in that case, an offense most definitely does not interfere with another country's soveriegnity.

Cal Thomas is a very respected journalist with is own show on the Fox News Channel. His columns appear in many newspapers around the country and he is factual in everything he writes, unlike the New York Times. If he does make a mistake he quickly corrects himself also unlike the so-called Newspaper of Record.

I don't remember saying anything about the NY Times, but I'll bite ...

Cal Thomas is a conservative op-ed columnist, an opinion writer, not a journalist. There is a difference. He is respected and widely syndicated, but that doesn't make his word gospel.

Now ... let's follow some other logic by what you've stated above:

Cal Thomas == Right and Factual
New York Times != Right and Factual

So what happens if the NY Times prints a Cal Thomas column?

:rolleyes:

Heh, at least leftist op-eds come out and admit it (Michael Moore).

I don't think offense is the only defense although it can sometimes be a good one...
Had the US known the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor, they'd have prepared a defense. If you don't believe me, think about The Battle at Midway.

Thats true, but all the intel was saying the same thing. The British were the ones to say that Saddam was trying to buy uranium from Mali. The French and Germans were saying that Saddam had WMD's as were the Russians. We KNEW he had them at one point because he used them against Iran and his own people.

Even today, our troops are finding artillery shells filled with sarin. Yes, only a few so far, but where there is smoke.....

Do I believe they are still there? I think there are stockpiles of chemical weapons there somewhere. maybe not a HUGE amount, but Saddam had said they were ALL destroyed and that he had none. I suspect there are supplies buried somewhere and obviously someone knows where they are because they are starting to show up in the form of IED's beside the roads of Iraq.

the vote passed the Senate about 98-2 Kerry voted for it. To say that he didn't declare war is factually inaccurate.


Of course, the fact that the bill starts with:

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.


The bill was clearly intened to induce the President to work towards a resolution of this issue via proper international channels.

however, it did give GW a blank cheque, which I think was a case of ALL concerned in Congress and the Senate abdicating their legal responsabilities especially given that it was passed on JAn 23, 02 - before even the 2002 NIE on IRaq was issued that provided the reason for going to war. The NIE was not issued until 9 months later.

So for those who say that the House and Senate voted for war on the same intel as GW eventually used to make his decision I sayBULLSHIT!

They voted for GW to pursue this issue with a possible military outcome before they were given the intel required that they should have had. Which I think was irresponsible of them ALL.

-Z-

Journalist, op-ed writer, is there really a difference these days. I mean honestly you have journalists editorializing and you have op-ed writers reporting facts.

Accept the quotes or not, but do you really think that Cal Thomas would jeopardize his whole reputation he has built over the years in misquoting a presidential candidate in the middle of an election year. I certainly think not. These quotes have been floating around for a while, again accept them or not.

Thats true, but all the intel was saying the same thing. The British were the ones to say that Saddam was trying to buy uranium from Mali. The French and Germans were saying that Saddam had WMD's as were the Russians. We KNEW he had them at one point because he used them against Iran and his own people.

Even today, our troops are finding artillery shells filled with sarin. Yes, only a few so far, but where there is smoke.....

Do I believe they are still there? I think there are stockpiles of chemical weapons there somewhere. maybe not a HUGE amount, but Saddam had said they were ALL destroyed and that he had none. I suspect there are supplies buried somewhere and obviously someone knows where they are because they are starting to show up in the form of IED's beside the roads of Iraq.
Uh, there are tons of weapons left over from the first Gulf War by the US and UK (don't believe me? Iraqis are getting cancer from the depleted uranium in them...) and again, I ask someone to present me a credible source that tells me exactly what French and German intel was saying. Also, like I said, if I had perfect intel that I knew was flawless, I'd understand the fact that very few nations can agree with pre-emptiveness, which is why I would have handled that intel the exact way that the US handled the intel they had on Midway.

Oh, and thanks to the war in Iraq, there are much fewer Coalition troops in Afghanistan and now some group called "Doctors without Borders" is leaving Afghanistan because terrorist attacking their hospital are not being punished. Thanks Bush.

couldent find ALL the quotes (at least on any big name sites that have to watch what they print)

But did find this quote yahoo news (not takin sides what just curious of the facts)


> - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002>
> "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
> aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
> weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have
> always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
> weapons of mass destruction."

couldent find ALL the quotes (at least on any big name sites that have to watch what they print)

But did find this quote yahoo news (not takin sides what just curious of the facts)


> - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002>
> "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
> aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
> weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have
> always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
> weapons of mass destruction."

That is different than saying "SADDAM HUSSEIN HAS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION RIGHT NOW AND IS AN IMMEDIATE THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" now isn't it?

You are correct, the bill passed by Congress was meant to encourage Bush to seek Security Council approval. And you know what, he did. When Saddam Hussein failed to adhere to the seventeenth and final resolution his time was up. How many times do we have to go to the UN? I mean seventeen broken resolutions and it takes the United States and a president willing to do something about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the final resolution authorize the use of force if Saddam didn't comply. Or would you rather have had yet another resolution that the UN didn't enforce. What is the point of the UN if you don't enforce the resolutions you pass?

Uh, there are tons of weapons left over from the first Gulf War by the US and UK (don't believe me? Iraqis are getting cancer from the depleted uranium in them...) and again, I ask someone to present me a credible source that tells me exactly what French and German intel was saying. Also, like I said, if I had perfect intel that I knew was flawless, I'd understand the fact that very few nations can agree with pre-emptiveness, which is why I would have handled that intel the exact way that the US handled the intel they had on Midway.

Even the Australian intel community believed it.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/02/29/sprj.nirq.australia.intel/

Saddam did not do himself any favors either by having materials being driven out the back gates of iraqi military bases as inspectors were coming in the front gates. I am certain he had some stockpiles saved up from the Iran-Iraq war, but I also believe he was bluffing about his military strength in many ways too.

Even the Australian intel community believed it.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/02/29/sprj.nirq.australia.intel/

Saddam did not do himself any favors either by having materials being driven out the back gates of iraqi military bases as inspectors were coming in the front gates. I am certain he had some stockpiles saved up from the Iran-Iraq war, but I also believe he was bluffing about his military strength in many ways too.
Thanks for completely ignoring everything in my post...
Australia has been on America's side pretty much since the Iraq war started. Show me a link about France and Germany. Also, are you saying that Saddam should not have been able to defend his country from an attack from another nation, because he certainly didn't have a chance against us.

You are correct, the bill passed by Congress was meant to encourage Bush to seek Security Council approval. And you know what, he did. When Saddam Hussein failed to adhere to the seventeenth and final resolution his time was up. How many times do we have to go to the UN? I mean seventeen broken resolutions and it takes the United States and a president willing to do something about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the final resolution authorize the use of force if Saddam didn't comply. Or would you rather have had yet another resolution that the UN didn't enforce. What is the point of the UN if you don't enforce the resolutions you pass?
I'm not sure if the last resolution authorized force or not, but I'm pretty sure it was a despute about whether or not the UN Weapons Inspectors actually were doing there job and France and Germany seemed to think that they were but Bush thought otherwise.

He should have been allowed to defend himself against any nation but not with weapons of mass destruction. That goes against every resolution the UN passed after Gulf War 1.

Thanks for completely ignoring everything in my post...
Australia has been on America's side pretty much since the Iraq war started. Show me a link about France and Germany. Also, are you saying that Saddam should not have been able to defend his country from an attack from another nation, because he certainly didn't have a chance against us.

Had Saddam not attacked TWO of his neighbors prior...there would have been no scrutiny on him to begin with. The UN mandated how many times that he disarm and open his bases for inspection and what did he do? He played a shell game.

Time alone will prove the intel right or wrong. Everyone wants a quick answer. Do you know where the US stockpiles of chemical weapons are?

... but I also believe he was bluffing about his military strength in many ways too.
...

Had Saddam not attacked TWO of his neighbors prior...there would have been no scrutiny on him to begin with. The UN mandated how many times that he disarm and open his bases for inspection and what did he do? He played a shell game.

Time alone will prove the intel right or wrong. Everyone wants a quick answer. Do you know where the US stockpiles of chemical weapons are?
Where is your link about whether or not France and Germany had the same intel?

You are correct, the bill passed by Congress was meant to encourage Bush to seek Security Council approval. And you know what, he did. When Saddam Hussein failed to adhere to the seventeenth and final resolution his time was up. How many times do we have to go to the UN? I mean seventeen broken resolutions and it takes the United States and a president willing to do something about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the final resolution authorize the use of force if Saddam didn't comply. Or would you rather have had yet another resolution that the UN didn't enforce. What is the point of the UN if you don't enforce the resolutions you pass?

Nice of you to skip over the part that rather shot down your assertion in your post that started the thread thatthose who claim that the declaration of war was made by people who had seen the same intel as the president are completely missing the timeline.....


And no, 1441 did not specifically authorize the use of force.

But then again, GW didn't let the provisions of 1441 work themselves out anyway did he? He refused to let the inspectors complete their tasks. He repeated that this was an issue that needed dealing with NOW because the danger was just too great, despite even the initial findings of the Nuclear Inspectors who stated categorically that Saddam was NOT reconstituting a program. Bush still clung to his aluminum tubes and yellow-cake from Niger theories into 2003 despite the CIA reporting to both him and the Senate in OCtober 2002 that the yellowcake intel was discredited, and despite mixed intel on the purpose of the rocket tubes, although the experts were ALL saying that this is not what they were for. Still, both those items were brought up in his 2003 State of the Union address.... months after the intelligence community had IFORMED him that they were incorrect.

Bush still clung to his aluminum tubes and yellow-cake from Niger theories into 2003 despite the CIA reporting to both him and the Senate in OCtober 2002 that the yellowcake intel was discredited, and despite mixed intel on the purpose of the rocket tubes, although the experts were ALL saying that this is not what they were for. Still, both those items were brought up in his 2003 State of the Union address.... months after the intelligence community had IFORMED him that they were incorrect.

Perhaps you haven't read Lord Butler's report from England which completely supports the claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger. Oh and the Senate Intel report says the same thing.

Had Saddam not attacked TWO of his neighbors prior...there would have been no scrutiny on him to begin with. The UN mandated how many times that he disarm and open his bases for inspection and what did he do? He played a shell game.

Time alone will prove the intel right or wrong. Everyone wants a quick answer. Do you know where the US stockpiles of chemical weapons are?

Oh - you mean the war that the US helped him with by giving him WMD to fight, and then the one that they approved before deciding after the fact to nail him for?

Those wars?


Such an unpredictable, threatening guy that he actually asks for permission first....

:rolleyes:


You DID of course read the NIE right? The one that stated that he was not a threat. That he was not in league with islamic terrorists against US interests. But that the one thing that might finally push him into bed with them was if he became convinced that an invasion was coming?

Someone Telegram me when the Bush supporters stop ignoring the best points brought up that contradict their opinions.

Perhaps you haven't read Lord Butler's report from England which completely supports the claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger. Oh and the Senate Intel report says the same thing.


No actually - it does not.

--EDIT ---

I mean that in respect to the Senate Report.

page 54 :

"On October 2 the deputy DCI testified before the SSCI. Senator John Kyl asked the deputy DCI if he had read the British white paper and whether he disagreed with anything in it. The deputy DCI testified that "the one thing where I think they stretched a little bit beyond where we would stretch is on the points about Iraw seeking uranium from various African locations. We've looked at those reports and don't think they are very credible"

It was at this time that this talking point was excluded from Presidential Speeches only to reapear three months later in the State of the Union address. When asked to comment on how that happened, Condi Rice's explanation was "we forgot".

Excuse me? The CIA phones you up and tells you to pull a key talking point from your speeches.... and then you just "forget" ? Whoopsie!

Indeed, you might remember that Tenent apologized for that being presented as "fact" in the state of the Union Address. His statement can be read right here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/944614/posts

The last line of paragraph one says all you need to know: "These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president. "


The Senate Report concluded only that the CIA was correct to investigate this matter, and devoted a fair bit of space to the process that was undertaken, but did not issue a statement validating this claim as being factually correct.

That is a good question; why aren't countries around the world scrutinizing their intelligence agencies? Why are intelligence allowed to just run around and make wild claims and recieve no punishment when proved wrong? And can you get me a source that says French and German intel was saying the same thing? Surely they had a good reason for being opposed to the war...

The French and the Germans did have a good reason to be against the war: they were up to their necks in the U.N. oil-for-food scandal. Their governments and their companies were heavily involved in bribery and kick-back schemes, and knew that if Saddam were toppled they would be exposed.

And to answer the question about what I would do: I would prepare to defend my country. Defense is perfectly justifiable by the UN Charter. The UN Charter also makes provisions for launching a war on a country who has attacked you. Also, if terrorists attacked us from Iraq or using Iraq's WMDs then we'd just attack it in the same way we did Afghanistan. In fact, we'd probably have more global support, wouldn't we?

Soooooo...you're willing to wait for another attack to kill thousands more before you would act against Iraq? Is this a case of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?" (The few being, of course, those who would have to die in the attack.)

The French and the Germans did have a good reason to be against the war: they were up to their necks in the U.N. oil-for-food scandal. Their governments and their companies were heavily involved in bribery and kick-back schemes, and knew that if Saddam were toppled they would be exposed.
Show me a link. Someone please show me a single link. That is all I ask for. Show me a link. And if they had different intel because of the scandal or because they were right (which they apparantly were), then what does it matter? The point is they were shoved away as being cowardly pussies and guess what, they were right.

Soooooo...you're willing to wait for another attack to kill thousands more before you would act against Iraq? Is this a case of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?" (The few being, of course, those who would have to die in the attack.)
Well, if you know there is going to be an attack, then you don't have to let thousands more die do you? Tons of Americans died in Pearl Harbor but very, very few died in the Battle of Midway.

The French and the Germans did have a good reason to be against the war: they were up to their necks in the U.N. oil-for-food scandal. Their governments and their companies were heavily involved in bribery and kick-back schemes, and knew that if Saddam were toppled they would be exposed.


That argument never really sat well with me either. Sorry. After all, Haliburton was doing the same damn thing and still is with Iran.

Incidentally - have you noticed that the investigation has really died down on that?

Have you wondered why?

Did you notice that the original allegations about this were leveled by that wonderkind of missinformation - Chalabi?

Maybe, just maybe, he was blowing smoke out of his ass on this subject too?

Heh, at least leftist op-eds come out and admit it (Michael Moore).

I presume you're referencing the posts about Cal Thomas. Hate to burst your bubble, but he makes his political leanings clearly known.

I presume you're referencing the posts about Cal Thomas. Hate to burst your bubble, but he makes his political leanings clearly known.
Why don't you reply to my reply to your post?

Uh, there are tons of weapons left over from the first Gulf War by the US and UK (don't believe me? Iraqis are getting cancer from the depleted uranium in them...) and again, I ask someone to present me a credible source that tells me exactly what French and German intel was saying. Also, like I said, if I had perfect intel that I knew was flawless, I'd understand the fact that very few nations can agree with pre-emptiveness, which is why I would have handled that intel the exact way that the US handled the intel they had on Midway.

Depleted uranium is just that: depleted. Do you know where the depleted uranium comes from, or are you just grasping at a straw to "prove" your remaining-weapons-causing-cancer assertion?

Well, I'll tell you, and in the process, show that these weapons could not be used to attack coalition troops. The depleted uranium is used to make the projectiles for anti-tank cannons. They work on the principle of kinetic energy (the little bullet goes real fast). There is no explosive or other means of using them to attack coalition troops, unless the insurgents are throwing them like rocks!

Incidentally, here is the stated French position on the assertion that they were somehow disproportionatly profiting from the oil for food program:

http://www.ambafrance-us.org/news/statmnts/2004/levitte_latimes040704.asp

Frankly - they raise some pretty damn good points regarding why even if there WAS corruption that they were certainly not a prime benficiary. Not compared to ... ohhh ... say the US who were after all taking the bulk of the oil.

http://www.inthenationalinterest.com/Articles/Vol2Issue23/Vol2iss23RivkinCasey.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3864301.stm

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=papers&code=03-D_26

http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iraq/Missile/2970.html

http://www.declaration.net/news.asp?docID=3986&y=2004

Only a few of the "just one link" that was demanded, for your perusal.

Incidentally, here is the stated French position on the assertion that they were somehow disproportionatly profiting from the oil for food program:

http://www.ambafrance-us.org/news/statmnts/2004/levitte_latimes040704.asp

Frankly - they raise some pretty damn good points regarding why even if there WAS corruption that they were certainly not a prime benficiary. Not compared to ... ohhh ... say the US who were after all taking the bulk of the oil.

An OP ED piece by the French ambassador? You're joking, right? Right? Please tell me you're joking...

An OP ED piece by the French ambassador? You're joking, right? Right? Please tell me you're joking...

Ah yes. Silly me. His facts regarding the level of French business involvement in Iraq cannot possibly be correct. After all - he's French.

Silly me

I mean, when were the French ever correct on anything regarding Iraq


:rolleyes:

Ah yes. Silly me. His facts regarding the level of French business involvement in Iraq cannot possibly be correct. After all - he's French.

Silly me

I mean, when were the French ever correct on anything regarding Iraq


:rolleyes:

Certainly a French ambassador would never lie to cover his ass. Well, maybe JUST the one in this news report:

"Companies, politicians and pro-Saddam Hussein activists from countries that opposed the war in Iraq figure heavily in a list of about 270 recipients of suspected oil bribes from Iraq under the scandal-plagued United Nations oil-for-food program, investigators say.
The Russian government, a former French ambassador to the United Nations, the son of Syria's defense minister and the U.N. undersecretary charged with running the oil-for-food program were included on the list compiled by Iraq's state oil ministry under Saddam and published by a Baghdad newspaper in late January.
Just 10 French organizations and officials are on the oil-for-food list, but they include a top adviser to President Jacques Chirac and France's ambassador to the United Nations in 1999." -- Washington Times; May 3, 2004. http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040503-123158-1229r.htm

Want to see the complete list referred to in this report?
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2004/0125almadalist.htm

The relevant parts (numbers refer to barrels of oil Saddam bribed them with):

France:

1. Adax/3.8 million.
2. Travocora/Patrick Mugan/25 million.
3. Michel Grima/17.1 million.
4. The Arab-French Friendship Society/15.1 million.
5. Ayks/47.2 million.
6. Charles Pascua/12 million.
7. Elias al-Grizli/14.6 million.
8. I Lutici (Claude Kaspert)/4 million.
9. Bernard Mirami/3 million.
10. Bernard Mirami/8 million.
11. Di Suza/11 million.

A reading of the list will reveal that the amounts of some of these bribes are among the highest on the entire list.

Good find. I had read that France was so against the toppling of Saddam because of their "special" arrangement. I had also read that the French were advising Saddam that the US would never invade and thats why they actively opposed the US at every opportunity. Oh the tangled webs we weave....

Yet, this story is hardly making a ripple anywhere. Could it be because it might make Bush look right afterall?

Interesting.

According to the Washington Times story there were only ten contracts between Iraq and France, yet your annotated list included 11 names. I also note that this story sources it's material as a list published by a Baghdad newspaper.


Reading the pre-amble to the second link it is clearly a) from a biased source, and b) claims to contain a list of "Memmorandums of Understanding", but carries no proof of any transactions actually occuring .


Incidentally, did you read that whole Washington Post article? Specifically the section that notes: "that the United States had the right to review every contract approved under the oil-for-food program"

I am not saying that there was no corruption. It's big business so you can pretty much assume that there was.

But until an official accounting comes out I'm just not going to point the finger at the country that had an 8% stake in Iraqi Oil as being the worst transgressor based on online data not yet proved credible.

Like I said. Chalabi raised the first claims. Chalabi also put himself in the position to head up the investigation from the Iraq side. Call me crazy, but I have dificulty taking his word as gospel these days. So I will wait for the proper forensic analysis that KPMG is doing.


Fair enough?

Interesting.

According to the Washington Times story there were only ten contracts between Iraq and France, yet your annotated list included 11 names. I also note that this story sources it's material as a list published by a Baghdad newspaper.


Reading the pre-amble to the second link it is clearly a) from a biased source, and b) claims to contain a list of "Memmorandums of Understanding", but carries no proof of any transactions actually occuring .


Incidentally, did you read that whole Washington Post article? Specifically the section that notes: "that the United States had the right to review every contract approved under the oil-for-food program"

I am not saying that there was no corruption. It's big business so you can pretty much assume that there was.

But until an official accounting comes out I'm just not going to point the finger at the country that had an 8% stake in Iraqi Oil as being the worst transgressor based on online data not yet proved credible.

Like I said. Chalabi raised the first claims. Chalabi also put himself in the position to head up the investigation from the Iraq side. Call me crazy, but I have dificulty taking his word as gospel these days. So I will wait for the proper forensic analysis that KPMG is doing.


Fair enough?

A closer inspection of the sources would reveal that one of the names in the list is repeated in two separate entries. I don't know why (10 different names, 11 different "contracts"?), but in any case that is minutia that doesn't change the nature or validity of the information. And yes, I did read the entire Times piece. We were discussing French involvment, so I only copied the relevant portions.

True, the list was published by a Baghdad newspaper. (I don't know why this is relevant; perhaps you are suggesting that all Iraqi media are unreliable?) But in, again, a closer reading of the article, one would note that "[the list was] compiled by Iraq's state oil ministry under Saddam." The paper merely published the list, it did not compile the list.

A closer inspection of the sources would reveal that one of the names in the list is repeated in two separate entries. I don't know why (10 different names, 11 different "contracts"?), but in any case that is minutia that doesn't change the nature or validity of the information. And yes, I did read the entire Times piece. We were discussing French involvment, so I only copied the relevant portions.

True, the list was published by a Baghdad newspaper. (I don't know why this is relevant; perhaps you are suggesting that all Iraqi media are unreliable?) But in, again, a closer reading of the article, one would note that "[the list was] compiled by Iraq's state oil ministry under Saddam." The paper merely published the list, it did not compile the list.


My understanding is that this list was "found" in the oil ministry and leaked out by one of Chalabi's minions as it was his cadre that got control of that ministry. I think his credibility is enough in doubt regarding his previous activities to await a more complete analysis.

What I find most interesting about the list is that it purports to be a kickback of oil vouchers to people outside Iraq - which seems an odd way for Saddam to have skimmed money by giving it away even when his revenues were so curtailed - and the list seems heavilly geared towards discrediting those that the US had a beef with regarding their stance on the war (Germany, Russia, France), with only two Americans on the list despite the US becoming the end-buyer of 41% of the oil.

Anyway. Like I said - I'm sure that some corruption did go on. It is a general part of doing business with despots.

I just think that you wait for the credible audit in such a case instead of accepting a submission from a suspect source who clearly has a history of missinformation.

A couple of other points.

I don't see where the globalpolicy.org site "claims to contain a list" of the Memoranda of Understading (MOU). It merely references them as sources. These MOU are the UN documents governing the administration of the Oil for Food Programme. You can access all the information on the UN's website at http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/index.html.

I'm not sure what you mean by "point the finger," but my original point was that the French opposed the war in Iraq because it would expose their complicity in the oil-for-food scandal. I think the evidence I have presented is sufficient to justify that as a potential motive.