NationStates Jolt Archive

It's the Walrus and the Carpenter (http://www.cs.indiana.edu/metastuff/looking/ch4.html.gz).

I love your posts. Lots of level-headed logic, readily available facts and thoughtful compassion all woven together to make a sound point or two.

Well, I'm ready to invade the UK now.

The first documented use of WMD's in Iraq was in the early 1920s. Winston Churchill, then member of the British government, ordered chemical bombardment of "recalcitrant" Shia villages. This took place before the 1925 Geneva Protocol, banning chemical and biological weapons.

And we know for sure that the UK has nuclear weapons...

And before you say that that investigation already happened, understand that only half of that investigation happened. That half being looking in to operational reasons why we had faulty intelligence. The other half of the investigation, probing whether there was any intentional manipulation, has been dead in congress for months and months and months.

What if Bush/someone else in the administration fears it will shine light on their lies or faults and they don't want that?

That could be why we haven't investigated the faulty intelligence yet. Someone (other than Bush) fears the truth will hurt him/her.

What if Bush/someone else in the administration fears it will shine light on their lies or faults and they don't want that?

That could be why we haven't investigated the faulty intelligence yet. Someone (other than Bush) fears the truth will hurt him/her.

Let's look at it from another perspective:

1. Let's say that Tenet manufactured most of the lies, in order to divert attention away from how he fucked up 9-11.

2. Bush, of course, wants to hear this stuff. So does his staff. Initial groupthink - they don't have to manufacture anything, because Tenet is shoveling it.

3. Democrats, anxious to look tough, also engage in groupthink, and go along with it.

4. Now we have massive groupthink, and no one saying no, and we go to war.

5. Now, in hindsight, we don't have much to show for the war (except a bedraggled Saddam) and the Democrats lose the next election - they anxiously look around for a new strategy - and find it in the Rockefeller Memo.

6. the new Democratic plan - say we were fooled and lied to

7. obviously, Republicans can't say that they were lied to - as the executive branch, you can't go around admitting you made a big mistake - so you'll have a natural interest in not answering too many questions.

8. I think that on the face of it, both sides gave too many reasons and too little thought into what they were doing just before the invasion - and I believe that Tenet laid a rotten egg - again

Let's look at it from another perspective:

1. Let's say that Tenet manufactured most of the lies, in order to divert attention away from how he fucked up 9-11.

2. Bush, of course, wants to hear this stuff. So does his staff. Initial groupthink - they don't have to manufacture anything, because Tenet is shoveling it.

3. Democrats, anxious to look tough, also engage in groupthink, and go along with it.

4. Now we have massive groupthink, and no one saying no, and we go to war.

5. Now, in hindsight, we don't have much to show for the war (except a bedraggled Saddam) and the Democrats lose the next election - they anxiously look around for a new strategy - and find it in the Rockefeller Memo.

6. the new Democratic plan - say we were fooled and lied to

7. obviously, Republicans can't say that they were lied to - as the executive branch, you can't go around admitting you made a big mistake - so you'll have a natural interest in not answering too many questions.

8. I think that on the face of it, both sides gave too many reasons and too little thought into what they were doing just before the invasion - and I believe that Tenet laid a rotten egg - again

Okay that was a reasinable, well made post. It is at least a plausible reasonale. :D

Okay that was a reasinable, well made post. It is at least a plausible reasonale. :D

I'm more inclined to believe in stupidity and groupthink than I am in evil conspiracies.

The government just isn't smart enough to lie that well. However, we are stupid enough to get there.

Even if he didnt have WMDs it says he was trying to get them. Surely thats just as bad when he DOES get them.

What Democrats said:

The Cost of War and Reconstruction in Iraq: An Update
An Analysis by the House Budget Committee’s Democratic Staff
September 23, 2003 HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE Democratic Caucus

The Honorable John M. Spratt Jr.
Ranking Democratic Member
B-71 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515
202-226-7200
www.house.gov/budget_democrats

According to the original Democratic bugetary proposal for the war prepared in September 2003:

Scenario C: Things Go Worse

In decidedly less favorable circumstances, this scenario assumes that U.S. forces remain in Iraq through 2010. In 2005 and 2006 our presence in Iraq drops to the level that CBO says we can sustain using all uncommitted and available forces, which is about 106,000 personnel. In 2007, the U.S. troop presence drops to the level the active Army and Marine Corps can sustain (76,000). In 2008, the force level drops to the level the active Army can sustain without the Marines (64,000). This level is then cut in half, to about two division equivalents (38,000) in 2009, and cut in half again to one division equivalent plus support (around 19,000) in 2010. All troops are gone from Iraq by the end of 2010.

Emphasis added.

As of December 14, 2003, there were 125,141 personnel (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/defense.html) supporting OIF.

Our actual force levels in 2005 have been 153,000. In other words, even under the opposite party in Congress' worst depicted scenario, we are maintaining 50% more troops in Iraq than we anticipated two years before.

We are not going to be able to get down to 106,000 personnel in 2006 unless there is a radical change of policy in the US, or a significant reduction in hostilities due to a change of public support away from al Qaeda, as well as a general armistice called between various Shi'a, Sunni, and Kurdish warlords, whether paramilitary leaders, mullahs, tribal chieftains or criminal kingpins, thus reducing the threat to Iraqi security.

The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300853_pf.html) reported that between April 28 and mid-August 2005 there were 4,000 civilian casualties -- over 1,000 per month. That's a pace of 12,000-15,000 per year. Which was as bad as it was under Saddam Hussein's brutal regime.

Washington now does not expect to fully defeat the insurgency before departing, but instead to diminish it, officials and analysts said. There is also growing talk of turning over security responsibilities to the Iraqi forces even if they are not fully up to original U.S. expectations, in part because they have local legitimacy that U.S. troops often do not.

"We've said we won't leave a day before it's necessary. But necessary is the key word -- necessary for them or for us? When we finally depart, it will probably be for us," a U.S. official said.

Our expectations at first were that we'd clean up the insurgents and then declare victory. We now have a growing demand, both economic as well as political, to leave before that mission is fully achieved. Possibly because as long as we are there, it cannot be fully achieved. Not unless the Iraqis are leading it themselves.

Ironically, [Wayne] White said, the initial ambitions may have complicated the U.S. mission: "In order to get out earlier, expectations are going to have to be lower, even much lower. The higher your expectation, the longer you have to stay. Getting out is going to be a more important consideration than the original goals were. They were unrealistic."

So we went in with an aggressive plan which is now back-firing. It knew how to execute the war, but it did not plan for the long pseudo-peace police action thereafter.

In Jan 2003 Donald Rumsfeld (http://www.usembassy.it/file2003_01/alia/a3011713.htm) made the case for a $50 Billion budget, citing a CBO figure for a cost for the invasion. Even at the time, on a public television interview, it was pointed out that outsiders were estimating $300 Billion as a more realistic figure.

Rumsfeld: Baloney.

So in March 2003, President Bush asked for $53.4 Billion for war in Iraq.

In July, in the same forum of Stephanopolis-Rumsfeld dialogue, there was an admission (http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030713-secdef0384.html) that the 'burn rate' for the war was in fact $3.9 Billion. Not the $1.9 Billion priorly suggested.

Finding a bit of a problem getting actual projections and figures out of the Administration for the total cost of the war, the Democratic caucus in September 2003 sat down and tried to analyze how much it might cost for the whole of the war.

They had about 150,000 troops in the nation at the time. They anticipated a gradual reduction in the violence, and thus underestimated the force needed in 2005 by nearly 50,000.

They believed then that the overall costs of an extenuated war in Iraq through the period of 2003 to 2013 would be $400 Billion.

By May 2004, the San Francisco Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/05/09/MNGOU6IK1J1.DTL) reported the government admitted spending in Iraq had not shrunk but grown, from a low of $2.7 Billion in Nov 2003 to $7 Billion in Jan 2004. Projections of spending on the operation mushroomed to $150 Billion through the next fiscal year. Conservatives denounced it as liberal propaganda.

FactCheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/article253.html) during the 2004 election stated that the war had "only" cost $119 Billion through the end of Sep 2004. Not the $200 Billion claimed by Kerry.

To be fair, the "$200 Billion" was not made up by John Kerry, but were actual figures quoted in the CBO's FY2001-2004 budgets. The issue that was overlooked was those funds had been appropriated, but not spent yet.

As an example, after the election, in January 2005, that number, or close enough -- $197.4 Billion -- was indeed cited in the The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2006 to 2015 (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6060&sequence=2) for the costs of the Global War on Terror. The overall umbrella under which OIF was funded.

The White House's FY2005 request acknowledged DoD's funds (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/defense.html) had gone up 35% since 2001.

By Feb 2005, there was a suggestion that $250 Billion (http://www.reason.com/hod/cp021605.shtml) had been appropriated. This must be said to be inflated for spending at the time, but was a realistic projection of foreseeable costs.

The Cost of War (http://costofwar.com/numbers.html) was researched to be $251 Billion in Oct 2005.

In October 2005, a report published by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) concluded that $251 billion had been obligated or appropriated for the Iraq War. The research was based not just on Congressional appropriations, but on the Department of Defense's (DOD) DFAS monthly obligations reports. The researcher also concluded that as war-related expenses were higher than anticipated, the DOD transferred money from peacetime funds (which they were permitted to do under certain circumstances as outlined in appropriations legislation). The DOD also transferred funds appropriated for Afghanistan or general war to the Iraq War.

The Cost of Iraq War counter is now based on the $251 billion for the Iraq War as concluded in the CRS report.

Therefore, according to the National Priorities Project (http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182), $219 Billion had been spent on Iraq as of 16 Nov 2005.

This $250 Billion figure already equals the CBO's 2003 best case "Scenario A" -- under which they had projected all US forces could be withdrawn by the end of 2007. It dwarfs by five time Donald Rumseld's original projection of a cost of $50 Billion to wage the war.

In other words, the peace has been four times as expensive.

While the US President is still touting staying the course, others are already planning around that. Iraq and the UK are planning already for an end-2006 timeframe for transition. Whether they get there will depend in great part on whether the intensity of the conflict increases or decreases or stays about the same.

Rather than admit there is a real, new need to face the facts on the ground, people are continuing to spout jingoistic, one-dimensional, patently idiotic statements that, if anything, contribute to institutional stupidity and lead to extenuation of hostilities, economic costs, and the ruin and degredation of life in Iraq and the United States.

In the Jan 2005 CBO report, it was stated:

Since military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan and other operations related to the global war on terrorism will continue in 2005 and for some unknown period thereafter, CBO has constructed a possible path of spending for such activities. It assumes that force levels and operations will remain at about the same levels in 2005 and 2006 as they did in 2004 and then will decline gradually over several years. Such a scenario might involve keeping about 200,000 active-duty, Reserve, and National Guard personnel deployed overseas to support those activities through fiscal year 2006. But over the longer term, it could involve reducing U.S. military involvement in those activities to about four brigades (40,000 troops) and decreasing domestic military operations for homeland security. Such a scenario would add about $30 billion to baseline discretionary outlays for 2005 and $418 billion for the 2006-2015 period.

What this statement leaves out is an additional cost projection of $172 Billion, either in raised taxes or in service of the debt, to maintain this level of troops overseas.

CENTCOM still maintains about 200,000 troops, including those beyond the 150,000 so directly in Iraq, supporting operations. So we have not seen the 2005 savings of $30 billion.

Taking that out of the projected costs as money already spent, we still are looking at $388 + $172 Billion, or $560 Billion in anticipated direct and financed costs through 2010. And that does not include the costs of the actual 40,000 troops still left behind. Those savings only materialize if we can reduce our 200,000 troops by 80%.

Thusly, inversely, the remaining cost of the 20% we will probably not be able to reduce will be an additional $140 Billion.

On top of the $251 Billion already appropriated, that is a best case minumum of $391 Billion -- which is was the worst case in the CBO 2003 projection -- to as much as $951 Billion.

What that means is that the US will spend, at bare minimum, $1,325 per capita on the Iraq war when all is said and done. A family of four needs to swallow the price tag of $5,300.

Presuming a worst-case continuation of our present force commitments, that cost rises to $3,200 per capita, or $12,900 for a family of four.

It is the equivalent of the US government buying every single person -- man, woman and child -- a laptop computer, and then detonating it and leaving you with the bill. Or buying a used or new car for every family of four, and then crashing it into a wall, again, stiffing them with the bill.

I think it's important to focus on what the administration said, both before and during the war. "Baloney" is what Rumsfeld called a $300 billion cost assessment, even months into the post-invasion campaign.

He should be served cold sandwiches so he can eat his words.

No they didn't. Congress did not have access to the President's daily briefings, George Tenet did not report directly to them nor did they have the DIA report that indicated that Al Qaeda and Saddam were not only not in league but that they had opposing goals. That is a pure unadulterated lie, and shame on you for repeating it.

You're right, the Democrats are trying to rewrite history...but only because the Whitehouse wrote a fabricated history to begin with.

But go ahead, keep repeating easily refuted lies. It really strengthens your position.

Hack.
So your telling me Clinton and his administration used G. W. Bush's info to come to the conclusions they did ? That the Democrats did not have their own source of info ..by virtue of having members on the HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITEE ?
That the Democrats are a bunch of easily led and decieved morons too lazy to look for their own sources of information . And that that makes them somehow more qualified to run the country ?
But go ahead , keep repeating your delusions , it really strengthens your position and helps me sleep better knowing those morons will never get to elect a president .

So your telling me Clinton and his administration used G. W. Bush's info to come to the conclusions they did ? That the Democrats did not have their own source of info ..by virtue of having members on the HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITEE ?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. George Bush left CIA a long time before Clinton entered office.

You might be speaking about how in 1992, because of failures in the Intelligence services then the Senate and House both launched investigations. (http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20041220-19.html)

The Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Intelligence Committee separately launched a significant effort in 1992 to overhaul the intelligence community. They also recommended the creation of a separate director of national intelligence with budgetary authority over the entire intelligence community and authority over personnel. The legislation also recommended structural changes within the CIA and other agencies' intelligence units.

Even though the legislation was not adopted, some of the recommended changes were included in the 1994 intelligence budget authorization legislation.

Gerald Ford was the first president to be shocked at how far the CIA had gone beyond their charter, spying on the US public and plotting the assassination of foreign leaders. For nearly two decades the CIA resisted reforms, citing the need to keep everything as a national defense secret. It didn't fly in 1975, and it didn't fly in 1992. Both times they were rebuked, given stricter orders and suggested oversite, and both times they resisted any overhauling.

Two further efforts during the Clinton administration -- the Aspin/Brown Commission in 1995-96 and the Intelligence Community in the 21st Century in 1996 -- sought enhanced congressional oversight and expanded authority for the existing director of central intelligence. The ensuing legislation in 1997 provided some enhancements by adding additional committees to the National Security Council -- one to oversee foreign intelligence gathering and establish policies and the other to identify transnational threats.

So, yes, Clinton, and Congress, did have different information than what was available to George H. W. Bush.

There were also significant upheavals at CIA between GHWB, Clinton, and GWB.

Tenet (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-06-03-tenet_x.htm) can be blamed as a scapegoat, but to his credit he had weathered the worst of the upheavals and had corrected a lot of the old post-Cold War deficiencies of CIA. Before him, CIA had 3 directors, none of which lasted more than two years. He dragged it into the Brave New World of the 2000s.

It did take them until 1999 to identify the organization of al Qaeda, 11 years after it was founded. It was still woefully short on addressing issues in Arabic language nations. It was still stuck in its attention span on North Korea and Russia. But it was changing.

Yet ignoring the rise of al Qaeda, which led tragically to the attacks of 9/11, was because of a White House reversion to the status quo ante, mocking and dismissing the evidence compiled under Clinton that al Qaeda was a serious threat, even though it had already been behind the 1993 bombing, and instead focused on North Korea and tilting at other classic hawkish Cold War windmills.

If the 2002 CIA report had been used to say to the UNMOVIC arms inspectors, "Here are our concerns, please see if you can get answers," that would have been an utterly different purpose than, "Find out proof of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs so we can go to war."

That the Democrats are a bunch of easily led and decieved morons too lazy to look for their own sources of information.

I respectfully submit that you, sir, seem to be coming across as easily led, never citing sources, and somewhat lazy in your justifications.

Can you prove, by research or citation, which specific Senate and House leaders, regardless of party affiliation, had access to all records of White House intelligence sources and discussions?

And that that makes them somehow more qualified to run the country?

They were elected not to run the country directly. That is the President's responsibility. They are elected to contribute to the collective legislation to run the country. But only a President is the singular executive leader.

But go ahead , keep repeating your delusions , it really strengthens your position and helps me sleep better knowing those morons will never get to elect a president.

As for delusions, you continue to duck actually replying to my various postings, instead taking rather simplistic personal attacks of opportunity at others who post opinions, not extensive citations of facts.

I'll sleep better knowing I am far from deluded, and that, by my postings, perhaps there are others who are better informed as well.

See, I believe that, rather than crow at the ignorance of the opposition, it is better to educate the electorate as a whole. It breeds civics and civility. It brings the nation together to mutually concerns and interests. While I can be critical and severe of those who I see hold a different opinion, I keep an open mind that others might have some basis of truth to what they say.

The question is: would you care to listen to the facts, or simply stand your ground on opinions and principles regardless of facts?

CIA's 2002 report on Iraq was a "White House pleaser." It was designed to make all actual past (even if destroyed or abandoned), and all questionable, possible, theoretical, and potential threats sound like they were current and urgent. It was designed to dump everything known about WMDs. Because they had to make up for 9/11. It was an overreaction. It was, for the most part, recanted, caveated, or admitted to be less urgent on practically all points in 2004.

Therefore, I would say that Clinton and Congress had a better organized CIA than GHWB had, but that Clinton used it in a critically different political capacity than GWB.

As to any individual's qualification, that's up for the electorate to decide. See you in 2008.

This thread is about what the Democrats believed in the period before the war and what they are spewing now .
Excuse me but WTF does this have to do with it ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beer and Guns
So your telling me Clinton and his administration used G. W. Bush's info to come to the conclusions they did ? That the Democrats did not have their own source of info ..by virtue of having members on the HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITEE ?


I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. George Bush left CIA a long time before Clinton entered office.

You might be speaking about how in 1992, because of failures in the Intelligence services then the Senate and House both launched investigations.


Quote:
The Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Intelligence Committee separately launched a significant effort in 1992 to overhaul the intelligence community. They also recommended the creation of a separate director of national intelligence with budgetary authority over the entire intelligence community and authority over personnel. The legislation also recommended structural changes within the CIA and other agencies' intelligence units.

Even though the legislation was not adopted, some of the recommended changes were included in the 1994 intelligence budget authorization legislation.


Gerald Ford was the first president to be shocked at how far the CIA had gone beyond their charter, spying on the US public and plotting the assassination of foreign leaders. For nearly two decades the CIA resisted reforms, citing the need to keep everything as a national defense secret. It didn't fly in 1975, and it didn't fly in 1992. Both times they were rebuked, given stricter orders and suggested oversite, and both times they resisted any overhauling.


Quote:
Two further efforts during the Clinton administration -- the Aspin/Brown Commission in 1995-96 and the Intelligence Community in the 21st Century in 1996 -- sought enhanced congressional oversight and expanded authority for the existing director of central intelligence. The ensuing legislation in 1997 provided some enhancements by adding additional committees to the National Security Council -- one to oversee foreign intelligence gathering and establish policies and the other to identify transnational threats.


So, yes, Clinton, and Congress, did have different information than what was available to George H. W. Bush.

There were also significant upheavals at CIA between GHWB, Clinton, and GWB.

Tenet can be blamed as a scapegoat, but to his credit he had weathered the worst of the upheavals and had corrected a lot of the old post-Cold War deficiencies of CIA. Before him, CIA had 3 directors, none of which lasted more than two years. He dragged it into the Brave New World of the 2000s.

It did take them until 1999 to identify the organization of al Qaeda, 11 years after it was founded. It was still woefully short on addressing issues in Arabic language nations. It was still stuck in its attention span on North Korea and Russia. But it was changing.

Yet ignoring the rise of al Qaeda, which led tragically to the attacks of 9/11, were because of a White House reversion to the status quo ante, mocking and dismissing the evidence compiled under Clinton that al Qaeda was a serious threat, and instead focusing on North Korea and tilting at other classic hawkish windmills.

If the 2002 CIA report had been used to say to the UNMOVIC arms inspectors, "Here are our concerns, please see if you can get answers," that would have been an utterly different purpose than, "Find out proof of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs so we can go to war."


Quote:
That the Democrats are a bunch of easily led and decieved morons too lazy to look for their own sources of information.


I respectfully submit that you, sir, seem to be coming across as easily led, never citing sources, and somewhat lazy in your justifications.

Can you prove, by research or citation, which specific Senate and House leaders, regardless of party affiliation, had access to all records of White House intelligence sources and discussions?


Quote:
And that that makes them somehow more qualified to run the country?


They were elected not to run the country directly. That is the President's responsibility. They are elected to contribute to the collective legislation to run the country. But only a President is the singular executive leader.


Quote:
But go ahead , keep repeating your delusions , it really strengthens your position and helps me sleep better knowing those morons will never get to elect a president.


As for delusions, you continue to duck actually replying to my various postings, instead taking rather simplistic personal attacks of opportunity at others who post opinions, not extensive citations of facts.

I'll sleep better knowing I am far from deluded, and that, by my postings, perhaps there are others who are better informed as well.

See, I believe that, rather than crow at the ignorance of the opposition, it is better to educate the electorate as a whole. It breeds civics and civility. It brings the nation together to mutually concerns and interests. While I can be critical and severe of those who I see hold a different opinion, I keep an open mind that others might have some basis of truth to what they say.

The question is: would you care to listen to the facts, or simply stand your ground on opinions and principles regardless of facts?

CIA's 2002 report on Iraq was a "White House pleaser." It was designed to make all actual past (even if destroyed or abandoned), and all questionable, possible, theoretical, and potential threats sound like they were current and urgent. It was designed to dump everything known about WMDs. Because they had to make up for 9/11. It was an overreaction. It wasa recanted in 2004.

Therefore, I would say that Clinton and Congress had a better organized CIA than GHWB had, but that Clinton used it in a critically different political capacity than GWB.

As to any individual's qualification, that's up for the electorate to decide. See you in 2008.

And you expect me to address your ramblings ?

Yes.

So do you think you can address the topic of the thread ? Instead of just tossing information around .

Yes, while reading up on who knew what when in the Senate and House, I came across this:

Memory Hole (http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm)

Apparently in 2001, Mr. Powell told the Senate:

It has been contained. And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful. There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control, but they have not been able to break out, they have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago.

So containment, using this arms control sanctions regime, I think has been reasonably successful.

This was the truth in 2001 as Colin Powell spoke it to Senator Bob Bennett (R-Utah) (http://bennett.senate.gov/), and it was the truth as we found it in 2003 and reported in the 2004 CIA review of WMD.

Except in 2002, it was made to sound quite otherwise.

So how does that explain the Democrats calling Saddam a threat before the war and a threat that needed to be removed etc. ?

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"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. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002



Are they all nuts or just brainwashed ?

So how does that explain the Democrats calling Saddam a threat before the war and a threat that needed to be removed etc. ?



Are they all nuts or just brainwashed ?
Read back through the earlier part of this thread, particularly the parts where we took Deep Kimchi to the woodshed on this very subject. It's all there, in earlier pages--I assume you know how to look at earlier parts of the thread, right?:rolleyes:

So how does that explain the Democrats calling Saddam a threat before the war and a threat that needed to be removed etc. ?



Are they all nuts or just brainwashed ?

Again, you're denying that there's a difference between a danger and a danger worth invading and occupying for. No rational person says that Saddam wasn't worth keeping a very close eye on and keeping it there indefinitely (which in Saddam's lifetime likely would have cost less money than this war and likely have cost fewer lives, though I admit this is specualtion...but the indications are clearly there.)


Again, it's a completely false dichotomy. Clinton's approach, sending airstrikes and missiles and keeping a tight eye on Saddam, appears now to have worked even in spite of the oil for food scandal.

So how does that explain the Democrats calling Saddam a threat before the war and a threat that needed to be removed etc. ?

Are they all nuts or just brainwashed ?

No, I don't believe so.

The point is not to paint Saddam Hussein as innocent, though various large corporations with ties to the Bush administration tried their best to paint him as our friend to win lucrative contracts, nor do I deny that he was a psychotic killer. Which some dismissed with a cordial handshake.

In fact, there is reason to believe Iraq granted tacit or explicit support to al Qaeda, though they also held each other at arm's length and had a falling out at times.

In that, all the Democrats are correct. You are citing arguments to show that they supported what they felt was an immanent threat.

So how does that jibe with Halliburton's (http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/02.03E.Hallib.Iraq.htm) sale of spare parts to Iraq through subsidaries between 1997-2000, which allowed them to get around the Oil-for-Food (OFF) program restrictions?

Here it was being pounded into our heads that "he's not our friend," and yet Cheney's firm is offering appeasement and enticement?

Of course, much of CIA's information did not get released to Congress until 27 October 2003 (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp?pg=1), long after the war began.

Even then, this was after CIA reported in July 2003 it was given heavy pressure to prove such links (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/13185348.htm) by the Bush administration.

In a July 2003 report, a CIA review panel found that agency analysts were subjected to "steady and heavy" requests from administration officials for evidence of links between Iraq and al-Qaida, which created "significant pressure on the Intelligence Community to find evidence that supported a connection."

Now that's odd. Why did the CIA only release the report to Congress months after the war began? And why did CIA complain to Congress that the Bush administration had put them under intense pressure to prove a link?

Congressional reports (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1006663,00.html) from 2003 found that the key assertions made in arguing for the war were false:

1. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was indeed in Iraq, but his group, originally named al-Tauheed, was a competitor with Osama bin Laden, not an ally. The war subsequently made the two organizations synonymous.

To lump them together is either a wilful misrepresentation or reveals profound ignorance about the nature of modern Islamic militancy. Either way, there's no link there. Nor has any evidence for one surfaced since the end of the war.

But, two years later, they have become one and the same. If you care to talk about revisionism.

2. Ansar-ul-Islam, which was based in northern Iraq, was not al Qaeda, nor was it even in an area of the country Saddam Hussein had control over. It was, in fact, under our own No Fly Zone. We could have simply attacked it whenever we wished.

3. While Iraq's IIS and Osama bin Laden occasionally tried to woo each other, they were at odds with each other. Saddam was a secular munafiq -- faithless hypocrite -- according to Osama's own words.

Before these disclosures, Congressmen were asked to accept matters on faith from CIA and the White House, which had greater access to intelligence.

About one spurious report developed by the Pentagon often cited to tie al Qaeda to Iraq, The Mercury News cautions:

After the report was leaked in November 2003 to a conservative magazine, the Pentagon disowned it.

Oh.

In fact, though the above article from the National Standard seem to indicate that it was a "slam dunk" there were ties over the years, in Jan 2004, Colin Powell was forced to concede the point: Powell Admits No Hard Proof in Linking Iraq to Al Qaeda (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0109-01.htm).

We can't say for sure if there is truth to what it reports or not. Much of what was reported by US intelligence agencies and the Iraqi opposition were exagerated and fabricated to please us, as much as Saddam Hussein's loyal minions fabricated reports to please him.

Of historical note, we almost did go to war in 1998 under President Clinton. But for WMD development and humanitarian purposes, not for links to al Qaeda. It was decided that a full-scale war was not necessary, but for there to be a use of cruise missile strikes.

Operation Desert Fox (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html) was launched.

At the time, the Republican leadership (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/congresstional.react.02/) chose to savage him, appearing shocked and feigning surprise, or at least opining skeptically at the decision to use force at that time -- since they were so busy trying to impeach him -- even though there had been months of discussion going back to October over Saddam Hussein's violation of the UNSCOM inspection regime.

Sen. Robert Torricelli (D-New Jersey) called the GOP reaction "as close to a betrayal of the interests of the United States as I've ever witnessed in the United States Congress. It's unforgivable and reprehensible."

"This is a time for our country to be united, even though we're divided on other matters," said Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota).

He and House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Missouri) issued a joint statement defending the timing, saying "any delay would have given (Iraqi President) Saddam Hussein time to reconstitute his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and undermine international support for our efforts."

A number of administration officials, including Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, rejected the charge that the president's political problems were a motivating factor.

Gen. Hugh Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, backed up that assessment.

The issue is not whether force should or should not have been used against Saddam Hussein.

It's whether there was double-dealing, with certain parties trying to make billions off of oil, arms and development deals before and since the invasion, which can miscolor them ethically.

It's about whether there was tacit collusion with Saddam's regime by any person or member of any political party, such as during the Reagan and first Bush administration before the Gulf War, when we actually did have our Navy intercede to support Iraq during the Tanker War, or by corporations or individuals abusing and handily profiting through the Oil-For-Food program during the Clinton and later Bush administrations.

It's about whether there were obstructions into investigations, fabrications or badly qualified intelligence placed before any President or Congress of the United States by CIA or other intelligence agencies, and whether it was shaped unethically to bring the support of the people of the nation.

It's also about whether our own military was given the tools, training and force composition needed to secure the peace after the war ended.

You can try to cast blame elsewhere if you like, but the issue comes back to roost at the White House which chose to invade when and where and how it did, and the arguments it put forth, and the preparations it made, or failed to make.

We could have used six months or an extra year to prepare a full plan, budget, and to appropriate the right equipment for the job. Up armored HMMWVs, Strykers with anti-RPG cages, and additional armor for Bradleys and urban armor kits for Abrams should have been thought about if we expected to be in the country facing an insurgency in a post-war environment.

We could clearly see by example that we'd face something far more like what might be found in Lebanon, Palestine or Israel than what we saw in GWI if we were going to occupy the nation. So why did we fail to prepare for that long uneasy time after the winning of the peace?

Why did we simply say we'd need only $50 Billion at the outset?

Remember Rumsfeld at the suggestion of $300 Billion being needed?

"Baloney."

The fact is that the short-sighted Bush administration low-balled the operation. It rushed it to get support while it had momentum. Whether wittingly or unwittingly, it rushed it before there could be final intelligence assessments of whether there was or was not a direct tie between al Qaeda and Iraq. It rushed it faster than our allies around the world were willing to follow. It rushed faster than the UN Security Council would support. It rushed it before UNMOVIC could get Saddam to knuckle under again to the UN inspection regime. And it rushed it before we could get up-armored vehicles for our troops who would be working in an urban warfare environment.

Because, according to their lack of strategic planning, they never anticipated long-term guerrilla warfare to this degree and to this duration.

If a person of any political party now, years after this operation began, has serious questions of the original arguments made to support the war, the cost of life blood, economic investment, strategy, or methods to achieve the long-term goals of the mission, they are quite entitled to. If they wish the nation to change its mind about how we spend our dollars and our future efforts, they are entitled to.

So please, quote the Democrats. It proves they are not traitors, as they are often accused, nor hypocrites.

Now in return, are you going to answer, substantively, any point I have raised in the many days of this discourse?

No, I don't believe so.

The point is not to paint Saddam Hussein as innocent, though various large corporations with ties to the Bush administration tried their best to paint him as our friend to win lucrative contracts, nor do I deny that he was a psychotic killer. Which some dismissed with a cordial handshake.

In fact, there is reason to believe Iraq granted tacit or explicit support to al Qaeda, though they also held each other at arm's length and had a falling out at times.

In that, all the Democrats are correct. You are citing arguments to show that they supported what they felt was an immanent threat.

So how does that jibe with Halliburton's (http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/02.03E.Hallib.Iraq.htm) sale of spare parts to Iraq through subsidaries between 1997-2000, which allowed them to get around the Oil-for-Food (OFF) program restrictions?

Here it was being pounded into our heads that "he's not our friend," and yet Cheney's firm is offering appeasement and enticement?

Of course, much of CIA's information did not get released to Congress until 27 October 2003 (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp?pg=1), long after the war began.

Even then, this was after CIA reported in July 2003 it was given heavy pressure to prove such links (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/13185348.htm) by the Bush administration.



Now that's odd. Why did the CIA only release the report to Congress months after the war began? And why did CIA complain to Congress that the Bush administration had put them under intense pressure to prove a link?

Congressional reports (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1006663,00.html) from 2003 found that the key assertions made in arguing for the war were false:

1. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was indeed in Iraq, but his group, originally named al-Tauheed, was a competitor with Osama bin Laden, not an ally. The war subsequently made the two organizations synonymous.



But, two years later, they have become one and the same. If you care to talk about revisionism.

2. Ansar-ul-Islam, which was based in northern Iraq, was not al Qaeda, nor was it even in an area of the country Saddam Hussein had control over. It was, in fact, under our own No Fly Zone. We could have simply attacked it whenever we wished.

3. While Iraq's IIS and Osama bin Laden occasionally tried to woo each other, they were at odds with each other. Saddam was a secular munafiq -- faithless hypocrite -- according to Osama's own words.

Before these disclosures, Congressmen were asked to accept matters on faith from CIA and the White House, which had greater access to intelligence.

About one spurious report developed by the Pentagon often cited to tie al Qaeda to Iraq, The Mercury News cautions:



Oh.

In fact, though the above article from the National Standard seem to indicate that it was a "slam dunk" there were ties over the years, in Jan 2004, Colin Powell was forced to concede the point: Powell Admits No Hard Proof in Linking Iraq to Al Qaeda (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0109-01.htm).

We can't say for sure if there is truth to what it reports or not. Much of what was reported by US intelligence agencies and the Iraqi opposition were exagerated and fabricated to please us, as much as Saddam Hussein's loyal minions fabricated reports to please him.

Of historical note, we almost did go to war in 1998 under President Clinton. But for WMD development and humanitarian purposes, not for links to al Qaeda. It was decided that a full-scale war was not necessary, but for there to be a use of cruise missile strikes.

Operation Desert Fox (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html) was launched.

At the time, the Republican leadership (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/congresstional.react.02/) chose to savage him, appearing shocked and feigning surprise, or at least opining skeptically at the decision to use force at that time -- since they were so busy trying to impeach him -- even though there had been months of discussion going back to October over Saddam Hussein's violation of the UNSCOM inspection regime.



The issue is not whether force should or should not have been used against Saddam Hussein.

It's whether there was double-dealing, with certain parties trying to make billions off of oil, arms and development deals before and since the invasion, which can miscolor them ethically.

It's about whether there was tacit collusion with Saddam's regime by any person or member of any political party, such as during the Reagan and first Bush administration before the Gulf War, when we actually did have our Navy intercede to support Iraq during the Tanker War, or by corporations or individuals abusing and handily profiting through the Oil-For-Food program during the Clinton and later Bush administrations.

It's about whether there were obstructions into investigations, fabrications or badly qualified intelligence placed before any President or Congress of the United States by CIA or other intelligence agencies, and whether it was shaped unethically to bring the support of the people of the nation.

It's also about whether our own military was given the tools, training and force composition needed to secure the peace after the war ended.

You can try to cast blame elsewhere if you like, but the issue comes back to roost at the White House which chose to invade when and where and how it did, and the arguments it put forth, and the preparations it made, or failed to make.

We could have used six months or an extra year to prepare a full plan, budget, and to appropriate the right equipment for the job. Up armored HMMWVs, Strykers with anti-RPG cages, and additional armor for Bradleys and urban armor kits for Abrams should have been thought about if we expected to be in the country facing an insurgency in a post-war environment.

We could clearly see by example that we'd face something far more like what might be found in Lebanon, Palestine or Israel than what we saw in GWI if we were going to occupy the nation. So why did we fail to prepare for that long uneasy time after the winning of the peace?

Why did we simply say we'd need only $50 Billion at the outset?

Remember Rumsfeld at the suggestion of $300 Billion being needed?

"Baloney."

The fact is that the short-sighted Bush administration low-balled the operation. It rushed it to get support while it had momentum. Whether wittingly or unwittingly, it rushed it before there could be final intelligence assessments of whether there was or was not a direct tie between al Qaeda and Iraq. It rushed it faster than our allies around the world were willing to follow. It rushed faster than the UN Security Council would support. It rushed it before UNMOVIC could get Saddam to knuckle under again to the UN inspection regime. And it rushed it before we could get up-armored vehicles for our troops who would be working in an urban warfare environment.

Because, according to their lack of strategic planning, they never anticipated long-term guerrilla warfare to this degree and to this duration.

If a person of any political party now, years after this operation began, has serious questions of the original arguments made to support the war, the cost of life blood, economic investment, strategy, or methods to achieve the long-term goals of the mission, they are quite entitled to. If they wish the nation to change its mind about how we spend our dollars and our future efforts, they are entitled to.

So please, quote the Democrats. It proves they are not traitors, as they are often accused, nor hypocrites.

Now in return, are you going to answer, substantively, any point I have raised in the many days of this discourse?


And again I will say that I have spent hours laying out the reasons why I supported the decision to invade Iraq and why I think democracy in Iraq is way to fight terrorism . I wont do it again and again on the twenty threads a day that come up on the war every day here.
Show me proof that the administration forced information that they new to be false into the Democrats heads to make them not only make statements in support of the war BUT TO VOTE ON RECORD TO AUTHORISE IT .
The debate over the need to go to war at this point to me is a waste of time . We already did it , we are there and will do more harm than good by leaving before we are done .
The fact that certain Democrats are putting up a smoke screen about how they feel they were duped is the point here . If they were duped whats that say about them to begin with ? How can they be effective opposition if they are so easily fooled on such an important issue ? This is all bullshit to me and posturing for the next election . They seem to be betting on the war being an unpopular issue still at the next election . The thing is there is another vote in December and if successfull ..like the preceding votes for the constitution and provisional election ...it will go along way to paving the road for our exit .
What will the Dems do then with success in Iraq ? Will they again change their minds ..I'll bet you a dollar they do .
One day when I feel like again spending hours at my computer saying the same things over and over and over again I will address all your points . I hope yopu understand how it might seem a bit counter productive to see the same type thread and the same old agruments come up time after time .

The Republican Party is a loathsome organisation responsible for countless unspeakable acts of terrorism, sabotage, murder and goodness only knows what else.

The Democratic Party is a loathsome organisation responsible for countless unspeakable acts of terrorism, sabotage, murder and goodness only knows what else.

Why expect any better from the Democrats when they are, to all intents and purposes, no better.

A few problems with your analogy. Germany prior to WWII was a first rate power with one of the mightiest militaries in the world...and Hitler still couldn't attack the US directly. Saddam was a third-rate tyrant with a largely de-clawed military of archaic design and no long range capabilities. He had no air force, or at least no air force capable of getting off the ground before being instantly shot down. Any attempt to create inter-continental missiles would have been obvious and easily countered before he could do a thing.

Secondly, Saddam was power-hungry and paranoid, much like Hitler. If Hitler had developed the bomb, do YOU think he would have given that capability to anyone else? Neither would Saddam. Giving nuclear weapons to Al Qaeda would have threatened Saddam's own rule.

Also, we KNEW he didn't have nuclear capabilities prior to the Iraq war. The aluminum tubes were known to be the wrong type for nuclear weapons. He didn't have enriched uranium or the capability to produce it or even the raw ore to start.

For some reason, righties have got it into their head that the only options prewar were to invade or to ignore Saddam completely. That was not the case. The inspectors were in Iraq prewar. They weren't finding anything, and we went to war anyway.

Yet another point. If Saddam HAD developed nuclear capabilities, then neutralizing him would have been a worldwide effort. Even France and Germany would have HAD to go along. Our burden in cost and troops would have been much less, and the nation-builing that followed would have had more international legitimacy.

Finally, in invading Iraq, we partially took our eye off of N. Korea, which DID create nuclear weapons and has them still.

Basically your analogy is a children's storybook scare tactic. It not only WOULDN'T have happened, it COULDN'T have happened.

Perhaps that's just me looking at the worst case scenario, which I tend to do often: it leaves you more prepared.

Also, I'm not sure that France and Germany would have gone to war, even if we had concrete proof of WMDs.

Saddam didn't need intercontinental missiles to attack Israel, he had missiles that attacked Israel a more than a decade before the OIF invasion. And a man with his resources, I believe, would have little trouble smuggling a chemical or biological agent into any country in the world, including America. I don't see why everyone asserts that just because Saddam didn't have the ICBMs to launch a warhead straight at Washington, D.C. (where I live), he wasn't a threat and therefore shouldn't have been attacked. He could still murder thousands of innocent people, most likely in Israel, which has been one of our staunchest allies for years. In my opinion, George H. W. Bush should have finished off Saddam in the Gulf War for his crimes then, and Clinton should have done something about his atrocities during that president's tenure.

You make a valid argument that Hitler was in control of a more powerful military than Saddam. Saddam, unlike Hitler, would probably not be able to win a war with the use of WMD, but he could still kill thousands of innocent people before he was defeated.

Finally, don't try to tell me that if we had not invaded Iraq, North Korea wouldn't have (alledgedly) created a warhead and the missiles to attack Japan. North Korea has been working towards nuclear capability for years. Having our "eye off them" did not make a difference. They would have gone ahead and done the exact same thing.

Oh shut up. All you guys ever do is open up liberal, anti American, communist threads, but those arnt trolling? God forbid someone actually wants to post something "right" (in more ways than one) and they are suspected of trolling for posting poltical statements....Stop being an idiot.

I think we'd love to see something that's right in more ways than one. We've yet to see it, but it would be nice to know it's there. So far, an American Conservative opinion that's rationally and morally justified is like Bigfoot, or UFO's. Sure it could exist in theory, but so far, every sighting has turned out to be a hoax.

I don't see why everyone asserts that just because Saddam didn't have the ICBMs to launch a warhead straight at Washington, D.C. (where I live), he wasn't a threat and therefore shouldn't have been attacked. He could still murder thousands of innocent people, most likely in Israel, which has been one of our staunchest allies for years. In my opinion, George H. W. Bush should have finished off Saddam in the Gulf War for his crimes then, and Clinton should have done something about his atrocities during that president's tenure.

You make a valid argument that Hitler was in control of a more powerful military than Saddam. Saddam, unlike Hitler, would probably not be able to win a war with the use of WMD, but he could still kill thousands of innocent people before he was defeated.

There were far bigger, more pressing cases of thousands of people being killed that were actually happening. Not in some sort of "it could theoretically have happened, but it didn't so we might have done the right thing" sense, but in the "hacked up bodies are strewn across the landscape, women and children raped and butchered" sense. If Iraq was a matter of humanitarian military conquest, then why didn't we start in Darfur where that effort was really needed, not in Iraq where we were avenging a 20 year old incident that we provoked, and didn't care about when it happened.

As MC Front put it...
"Whose hand our man Don was on in 83
But who now exemplifies all evil
Guess that's what you get for shaking hands with people
Who represent the vast and sinister interests of industry"

The reason democrats are upset is that the CIA claimed as well as the President of the United States of America that Sadam had W.M.D.s and that he was intending to use them on us and that Sadam and Osama had links together. This was cause to go to war. After we went to war the weapons were discovered not to be in Iraq, Bush claimed they had been moved to syria and stuck by that for a good while. Then once the election began he said they did not exist. Bush has yet to comment on whether or not he still believes that Sadam and Osama were actually working together and now says that we went to war to spread freedom. If you lie to democrats yes they will vote for something. The democrats only mistake was believeing their comander in chief and believe me they wont make that mistake again!

This is bushanomics here. I'm bush like. The democrats are not being helpful in this war this war was intended to spread earl, shit, I mean freedom. Because freedom must be spread like a rapid disease, like crabs. Nasty little buggers I've had those. This president has already had an election over this war and the people voted for it the laberals just cant see that. Cause their laberal. So uh ... things are uh things are at the point to where uh the laberals are just be unreasponsible. This president was the first president to go to mongolia thats got to count for something.