WMDs

What do you think about the world?
Post Reply
User avatar
Asheran Mojomaster
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1457
Joined: November 22, 2002, 8:56 pm
Location: In The Cloud

WMDs

Post by Asheran Mojomaster »

Bush, Cheney Concede Saddam Had No WMDs

By SCOTT LINDLAW

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush and his vice president conceded Thursday in the clearest terms yet that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, even as they tried to shift the Iraq war debate to a new issue - whether the invasion was justified because Saddam was abusing a U.N. oil-for-food program.

Ridiculing the Bush administration's evolving rationale for war, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry shot back: ``You don't make up or find reasons to go to war after the fact.''

Vice President Dick Cheney brushed aside the central findings of chief U.S. weapons hunter Charles Duelfer - that Saddam not only had no weapons of mass destruction and had not made any since 1991, but that he had no capability of making any either - while Bush unapologetically defended his decision to invade Iraq.

``The Duelfer report showed that Saddam was systematically gaming the system, using the U.N. oil-for-food program to try to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions,'' Bush said as he prepared to fly to campaign events in Wisconsin. ``He was doing so with the intent of restarting his weapons program once the world looked away.''


Duelfer found no formal plan by Saddam to resume WMD production, but the inspector surmised that Saddam intended to do so if U.N. sanctions were lifted. Bush seized upon that inference, using the word ``intent'' three times in reference to Saddam's plans to resume making weapons.


This week marks the first time that the Bush administration has listed abuses in the oil-for-fuel program as an Iraq war rationale. But the strategy holds risks because some of the countries that could be implicated include U.S. allies, such as Poland, Jordan and Egypt. In addition, the United States itself played a significant role in both the creation of the program and how it was operated and overseen.


For his part, Cheney dismissed the significance of Duelfer's central findings, telling supporters in Miami, ``The headlines all say `no weapons of mass destruction stockpiled in Baghdad.' We already knew that.''


The vice president said he found other parts of the report ``more intriguing,'' including the finding that Saddam's main goal was the removal of international sanctions.


``As soon as the sanctions were lifted, he had every intention of going back'' to his weapons program, Cheney said.


The report underscored that ``delay, defer, wait, wasn't an option,'' Cheney said. And he told a later forum in Fort Myers, Fla., speaking of the oil-for-food program: ``The sanctions regime was coming apart at the seams. Saddam perverted that whole thing and generated billions of dollars.''


Yet Bush and Cheney acknowledged more definitively than before that Saddam did not have the banned weapons that both men had asserted he did - and had cited as the major justification before attacking Iraq in March 2003.


Bush has recently left the question open. For example, when asked in June whether he thought such weapons had existed in Iraq, Bush said he would ``wait until Charlie (Duelfer) gets back with the final report.''


In July, Bush said, ``We have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction,'' a sentence construction that kept alive the possibility the weapons might yet be discovered.


On Thursday, the president used the clearest language to date nailing the question shut:


``Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there,'' Bush said. His words placed the blame on U.S. intelligence agencies.


In recent weeks, Cheney has glossed over the primary justification for the war, most often by simply not mentioning it. But in late January 2004, Cheney told reporters in Rome: ``There's still work to be done to ascertain exactly what's there.''


``The jury is still out,'' he told National Public Radio the same week, when asked whether Iraq had possessed banned weapons.


Duelfer's report was presented Wednesday to senators and the public with less than four weeks left in a fierce presidential campaign dominated by questions about Iraq and the war on terror.


In Bayonne, N.J., Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards on Thursday called ``amazing'' Cheney's assertions that the Duelfer report justified rather than undermined Bush's decision to go to war, and he accused the Republican of using ``convoluted logic.''


Kerry, in a campaign appearance in Colorado, said: ``The president of the United States and the vice president of the United States may well be the last two people on the planet who won't face the truth about Iraq.''


A short time later, while campaigning in Wisconsin, Bush angrily responded to Kerry's charge he sought to ``make up'' a reason for war.


``He's claiming I misled America about weapons when he, himself, cited the very same intelligence about Saddam weapons programs as the reason he voted to go to war,'' Bush said. Citing a lengthy Kerry quote from two years ago on the menace Saddam could pose, Bush said: ``Just who's the one trying to mislead the American people?''


http://cnn.aimtoday.cnn.com/news/story. ... 007MOCR101


Wow hes finally admitted it, and it only took a fucking year.[/quote]
Image
User avatar
Zaelath
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4621
Joined: April 11, 2003, 5:53 am
Location: Canberra

Post by Zaelath »

What's this, the 4th time they've made up a new reason to invade Iraq? At least this reason has "oil" in it somewhere..

I'm starting to wonder if big Dick doesn't have a time machine, because the concept of causality seems to elude him completely. "It's hard to get support [in 2002] when Kerry is calling it a coalition of the bribed [in 2004]"

I'd find the whole thing highly amusing if ~50% of you weren't ready to put these two bandits back into office.
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
Silvarel Mistmoon
Gets Around
Gets Around
Posts: 160
Joined: July 18, 2002, 1:13 am
Location: Vestavia Hills AL

Post by Silvarel Mistmoon »

Well sense they all voted to go to war off the same intel and you all feel misled then I suggest you find yourselves a man or woman that isn't in Washington to vote for.
Safe Travels,
Silvarel Mistmoon
User avatar
Akaran_D
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4151
Joined: July 3, 2002, 2:38 pm
Location: Somewhere in my head...
Contact:

Post by Akaran_D »

That'd be senator kerry.. er, ops.
Akaran of Mistmoore, formerly Akaran of Veeshan
I know I'm good at what I do, but I know I'm not the best.
But I guess that on the other hand, I could be like the rest.
User avatar
Zaelath
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4621
Joined: April 11, 2003, 5:53 am
Location: Canberra

Post by Zaelath »

Yeah, hi, this is for all those that think the opposition has the same access to intel as the government in power: fuck you.

Thank you, that is all.
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
User avatar
Marbus
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2378
Joined: July 4, 2002, 2:21 am
Contact:

Post by Marbus »

Agree :) If Bush didn't have information others didn't something is serously wrong.

Marb
Voronwë
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 7176
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:57 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Post by Voronwë »

Bush did have information that others didn't. It came to him from Cheney. Cheney's information came to him from his direct report Douglas Feith. Douglas Feith got this information from Ahmed Chalabi.

Ahmed Chalabi had built a network in Washington for 10+ years to work to his interests for the US to install a pro-western government in Iraq. His interest in this of course was to be a significant player in that government. For instance when the Iraqi National Congress (may be different organization name) met in Zurich before the invasion they voted for Chalabi to have no roll in the organization. Interestingly, when the players were announced, Chalabi somehow found his name as a prominant player on the list thanks to his well placed friends. Chalabi provided Feith with extensive information regarding the location of WMDs.

But this report of no WMDs comes as a complete shock to all reasonable observers :roll: .
User avatar
masteen
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 8197
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:40 pm
Gender: Mangina
Location: Florida
Contact:

Post by masteen »

I heard they found yellow cake mix in Saddam's kitchen. DON'T YOU KNOW WHAT THEY CAN DO WITH YELLOW CAKE, SON!?!?!
"There is at least as much need to curb the cruel greed and arrogance of part of the world of capital, to curb the cruel greed and violence of part of the world of labor, as to check a cruel and unhealthy militarism in international relationships." -Theodore Roosevelt
Fairweather Pure
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 8509
Joined: July 3, 2002, 1:06 pm
XBL Gamertag: SillyEskimo

Post by Fairweather Pure »

Well sense they all voted to go to war off the same intel and you all feel misled then I suggest you find yourselves a man or woman that isn't in Washington to vote for.
They voted to give the President the power to go to war. I doubt anyone thought he would shut down UN talks and place war as the one and only solution to Iraq. They voted to give him the big stick to scare people, and he started whacking away at a frightening and alarming pace.

When all this was in the works, the Bush administration had one single solution, and that was WAR. Absolutley nothing else phased them. That reason alone should be enough for any reasonable person to vote anything but Bush this year. Thier agenda was obvious, and it certianly was not in America's best interest.
User avatar
Winnow
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 27728
Joined: July 5, 2002, 1:56 pm
Location: A Special Place in Hell

Post by Winnow »

Fairweather Pure wrote: They voted to give the President the power to go to war. I doubt anyone thought he would shut down UN talks and place war as the one and only solution to Iraq. They voted to give him the big stick to scare people, and he started whacking away at a frightening and alarming pace.
You don't give someone authority to use force as a fear tactic and not expect them to use it. UN talks dragged on for a looooooong time. Bush didn't shut them off like a light switch.
Fairweather Pure
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 8509
Joined: July 3, 2002, 1:06 pm
XBL Gamertag: SillyEskimo

Post by Fairweather Pure »

You don't give someone authority to use force as a fear tactic and not expect them to use it.
This is simply wrong. Nukes are a good example of my point that you missed. We have nukes, the President can launch nukes, but he isn't dropping them just because he can.
UN talks dragged on for a looooooong time.
Not long enough apparently. As soon as the UN was unwilling to do what the Bush Administration deemed vital, they did indeed shut off talks like a light switch. Funny how the UN weapons inspectors were right all along! Just keep sucking that Bush cock though.
User avatar
Midnyte_Ragebringer
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 7062
Joined: July 4, 2002, 1:59 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: Daellyn
Location: Northeast Pennsylvania

Post by Midnyte_Ragebringer »

Voronwë wrote:
But this report of no WMDs comes as a complete shock to all reasonable observers :roll: .
HUH? This is not new news. We have known there are no stockpiles of WMD's for over a year now. What is nice to hear in this report, but of course is not being talked about, is that the UN is corrupt. That France, Germany and Russia were part of this "Oil for Food" scandal. That these are the exact nations Kerry says he would have gotten behind us. The same countries who were profiting off of Saddam. The same countries who said they would not join the coalition in Iraq if Kerry becomes president. I also like the news about Saddam intent and how it is a good thing he is out of power and how he would have used the money he was getting from Russia, France and Germany to reconstitute his WMD program.

If the tables were turned the media would be all over this Oil for Food scandal. Problem is pointing all this out and really making it the big deal it is only helps Bush. So it has and will not happen. Instead we get "NO WND"S!!! AH HAH!!!!" again and again and again. Pathetic fools.
User avatar
Kaldaur
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1850
Joined: July 25, 2002, 2:26 am
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: Kaldaur
Location: Illinois

Post by Kaldaur »

Midnyte, watch the State of the Union address from 2003. Then tell me again why finding no WMDs is such a big deal. That's why we went to war. End of story. We went there to get him to "disarm", and he has nothing to disarm. There's no two ways around it, we got screwed.
User avatar
Midnyte_Ragebringer
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 7062
Joined: July 4, 2002, 1:59 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: Daellyn
Location: Northeast Pennsylvania

Post by Midnyte_Ragebringer »

Kaldaur wrote:Midnyte, watch the State of the Union address from 2003. Then tell me again why finding no WMDs is such a big deal. That's why we went to war. End of story. We went there to get him to "disarm", and he has nothing to disarm. There's no two ways around it, we got screwed.
Look dude. WMD's was made to be the numero uno reason we went to war. There were many other reasons, terrorists, harboring terrorists, etc. My personal opinion I have also stated numerous times. The guy was scum and I don't care what reason they needed to put out there to get the pussies of the country to go along. Those people over there deserve and better life. They are on there way to getting it one day. End of story for me.
User avatar
miir
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 11501
Joined: July 3, 2002, 3:06 pm
XBL Gamertag: miir1
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Post by miir »

There were many other reasons, terrorists, harboring terrorists, etc
Well than answer me this.

If 'terrorists and harboring terrorists' were valid reasons to invade and occupy Iraq, why were they not played up by Bush?

If they had been able to provide any solid evidence abotu Saddam supporting and harboring terrorist groups, I think international opinion may have swayed in favor of an invasion and in turn, giving the US more allies in their 'war on terror'.

The guy was scum and I don't care what reason they needed to put out there to get the pussies of the country to go along. Those people over there deserve and better life. They are on there way to getting it one day. End of story for me.
It's sad that you suck republican cock so hard that I actually think you believe the stuff you post.

You have my pity.
I've got 99 problems and I'm not dealing with any of them - Lay-Z
Rekaar.
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 689
Joined: July 18, 2002, 8:44 pm
Contact:

Post by Rekaar. »

It's as if people somehow expect the President of the United States, in the middle of a war where he has troops and allies committed, fighting, and dying...to just up and say "well shit, since one of the reasons for us going in turns out to have been off base, this was all a grand diversion! A mistake! Keep up the good work though...send more troops please."

No matter what, the decision was based on what they knew then and not what we know now. Frankly I don't think the report changes anything, but it's amazing how both sides can find strong things in it to support their claims.

Why do you liberals cling so tightly to the notion the President actually wanted to send troops in, strain ties with the UN, and bet his entire Presidency on pursuing Hussein when he clearly didn't stand to benefit from the move politically. Could it be he really believed it was the right thing to do based on everything he knew? Could it be there's no grand conspiracy? Knowing what we know today, details of he said she said aside, was it worth it to depose Hussein?

I say yes. I also think history will, more recently than we might expect, prove me right.
Time makes more converts than reason. - Thomas Paine
User avatar
miir
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 11501
Joined: July 3, 2002, 3:06 pm
XBL Gamertag: miir1
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Post by miir »

Could it be he really believed it was the right thing to do based on everything he knew?
Well, if god told him to invade Iraq, it must be the right thing to do.
Could it be there's no grand conspiracy?
As time goes on and each reason/justification for the invasion is dismissed, a conspiracy seems even more probable.
Knowing what we know today, details of he said she said aside, was it worth it to depose Hussein?
Why don't you pose that question to the families of the over 1k americans and the 15k Iraqis killed in Iraq?
I've got 99 problems and I'm not dealing with any of them - Lay-Z
User avatar
archeiron
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1289
Joined: April 14, 2003, 5:39 am

Post by archeiron »

Rekaar. wrote:Why do you liberals cling so tightly to the notion the President actually wanted to send troops in, strain ties with the UN, and bet his entire Presidency on pursuing Hussein when he clearly didn't stand to benefit from the move politically. Could it be he really believed it was the right thing to do based on everything he knew? Could it be there's no grand conspiracy? Knowing what we know today, details of he said she said aside, was it worth it to depose Hussein?

I say yes. I also think history will, more recently than we might expect, prove me right.
Why do you think that only liberals disagree with President Bush? I have family members that are incredibly conservative Republicans that think that Bush went to war in Iraq for bullshit reasons. One of those is a decorated pilot from the Korean War.
[65 Storm Warden] Archeiron Leafstalker (Wood Elf) <Sovereign>RETIRED
User avatar
Winnow
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 27728
Joined: July 5, 2002, 1:56 pm
Location: A Special Place in Hell

Post by Winnow »

Fairweather Pure wrote:
You don't give someone authority to use force as a fear tactic and not expect them to use it.
This is simply wrong. Nukes are a good example of my point that you missed. We have nukes, the President can launch nukes, but he isn't dropping them just because he can.
Eh? Nukes are a different story. The Russians never attacked us. The terrorists did. We didn't grant the president the right to nuke another country because a country had already nuked us. The situation is different...How about Pearl Harbor? Did we give the president the right to use force as a scare tactic then as well?
User avatar
miir
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 11501
Joined: July 3, 2002, 3:06 pm
XBL Gamertag: miir1
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Post by miir »

The Russians never attacked us. The terrorists did.
Did I miss something?
When did Iraq attack the US?
I've got 99 problems and I'm not dealing with any of them - Lay-Z
User avatar
Winnow
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 27728
Joined: July 5, 2002, 1:56 pm
Location: A Special Place in Hell

Post by Winnow »

miir wrote:
The Russians never attacked us. The terrorists did.
Did I miss something?
When did Iraq attack the US?
They fired SCUDs at our allies! An attack on our friends is an attack against America. (That's why we all may be screwed if China goes into Taiwan)
Voronwë
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 7176
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:57 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Post by Voronwë »

yeah in 1991 while we were engaged with their forces in southern Iraq.
User avatar
Kelshara
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4176
Joined: November 18, 2002, 10:44 am
Location: Norway

Post by Kelshara »

No matter what, the decision was based on what they knew then and not what we know now. Frankly I don't think the report changes anything, but it's amazing how both sides can find strong things in it to support their claims.
Yeah what they knew then to most likely not be true. But wait, let's ignore that little fact since it hurts your hero, shall we?

And Winnow using 9/11 to justify Iraq is no surprise whatsoever.
vn_Tanc
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2398
Joined: July 12, 2002, 12:32 pm
Location: UK

Post by vn_Tanc »

The right are constantly asking us to agree that the end justified the means with their revisionist views of this war.
I'll never agree. All us anti-war people wanted was more patience, due process, and compliance with international law. Bush et al. cooked up a scaremongering story to go to war on their own hasty timetable. How anyone can even consider forgiving them for this bullshit artistry is beyond me. If the anti-war people had got their way Saddam would still be out of power by now in all likelihood, and the issue would be a dead one because everyone would have been on board.
A man with a fork
In a world of soup
Image
User avatar
Zaelath
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4621
Joined: April 11, 2003, 5:53 am
Location: Canberra

Post by Zaelath »

It's not the lie of why they went, it's the lie of pre-emption being a defense against terrorism that these people are buying. They just don't give a damn about WMD, etc.
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
User avatar
Akaran_D
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4151
Joined: July 3, 2002, 2:38 pm
Location: Somewhere in my head...
Contact:

Post by Akaran_D »

Tanc, the US is the only country that wanted to go to war with Iraq.

If the - apparently and un/fortunately (depending on your views) correct - anti-war people in the US had their way, allowing for more time to review, get international compliance, ect, why do you think that Saddam would still be out of power?

I'm not generically 'for war', nor am I generically 'for peace' - I don't like being lied to, it's as simple as that. But, if it was found out that there were no facts or 'politically correct' reasons to go to war, why do you think we would have gone anyways?
Akaran of Mistmoore, formerly Akaran of Veeshan
I know I'm good at what I do, but I know I'm not the best.
But I guess that on the other hand, I could be like the rest.
vn_Tanc
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2398
Joined: July 12, 2002, 12:32 pm
Location: UK

Post by vn_Tanc »

allowing for more time to review, get international compliance, ect, why do you think that Saddam would still be out of power?
Well if he wasn't a threat/funding terror/building WMD when perhaps it was pointless going in in the first place? You have a point.
However there's nothing to say that his breach of UN resolutions couldn't have been used as a reason (although it puts Israel in a bad light as they've been in breach of multiple resolutions for decades longer than Iraq was), or that the remit of the UN could have been altered to allow oppressive regimes to be removed from power (heh).
I'm not generically 'for war', nor am I generically 'for peace' - I don't like being lied to, it's as simple as that
Are you talking about Saddam lying about his weapons programs (i.e pretending he might have some) or your government selling you a pig in a poke?
if it was found out that there were no facts or 'politically correct' reasons to go to war
Facts and "political correctness" (your emphasis) are worthy of equal contempt?
My opinion is (as I've stated) that war should be the ultimate final last resort ever, and only used in otherwise intractable situations. That was not the case here. However much you righties don't like it, containment was working, was cheaper than your war in terms of $ as well as human cost and yes, Hussein was a tosser but he was NO THREAT. Our soldiers should not have been sent into this hellhole so hastily. Doubly so now we know the purported reasons were errors/lies.

International law does not allow for powers to liberate oppressed people for their own good (I'd prefer it if it did but how are you ever going to decide who is oppressed and who isn't? not saying we shouldn't try though). But the simple fact of life (I know you righties love to brandish your realpolitik credentials at every turn but get this down you) that there are oppressed peoples around the world. Always have been, always will be. I'm all for international pressure on these regimes and would happily favour military action against the most odious if there was any kind of workable international program allowing it. But there isn't so in the meantime we must adhere to international law or we're just going to slide back into 19th century might-makes-right.
A man with a fork
In a world of soup
Image
User avatar
Akaran_D
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4151
Joined: July 3, 2002, 2:38 pm
Location: Somewhere in my head...
Contact:

Post by Akaran_D »

Are you talking about Saddam lying about his weapons programs (i.e pretending he might have some) or your government selling you a pig in a poke?
Both, really.

As for political correctness, I am not a PC person. Never have been, don't pretend to be. I'm less swayed by the flavor of the month in DC than I am honest truths about an issue. :)
Akaran of Mistmoore, formerly Akaran of Veeshan
I know I'm good at what I do, but I know I'm not the best.
But I guess that on the other hand, I could be like the rest.
User avatar
Lohrno
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2416
Joined: July 6, 2002, 4:58 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Post by Lohrno »

Winnow wrote: The Russians never attacked us. The terrorists did. We didn't grant the president the right to nuke another country because a country had already nuked us. The situation is different...How about Pearl Harbor? Did we give the president the right to use force as a scare tactic then as well?
Well, what Bush did was like being granted the permission to use force after pearl harbor, then attacking Zimbabwe.

Let's get it through your thick skulls already: Iraq (the country to the 'left' of Iran and north of Kuwait (Or vietnam II as it's called now)) did not have any connection to the Sept 11 Attackers (The people who hijacked the planes and flew them into the world trade center on September 11, 2001).

Not only that but they were not good friends even besides maybe in an the enemy of my enemy way. Let's look at Iraq - it was a dictatorship, strict rules, people getting executed left and right, and religiously sectarian. Now let's look at Al Qaeda -- religious fundies, drug trafficking, etc. They are criminals, they might have been executed if they were found in Iraq. Trying to lump the two together is kind of like trying to put a square peg in a triangle hole. Saddam was kind of like Hitler, and Al Qaeda is like Pablo escobar's cartel, except religious fundies.

-=Lohrno
Voronwë
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 7176
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:57 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Post by Voronwë »

68% of Republicans believe Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11.

:roll:
User avatar
Thess
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1036
Joined: July 4, 2002, 1:34 am
Location: Connecticut

Post by Thess »

I wonder how many republicans still believe in Santa
User avatar
Winnow
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 27728
Joined: July 5, 2002, 1:56 pm
Location: A Special Place in Hell

Post by Winnow »

Thess wrote:I wonder how many republicans still believe in Santa
If forced to choose, I'd believe in Santa over God if the issues of flying reindeer, the bottomless bag of toys, visiting all of those homes in one day, and fitting his fat ass down the chimneys could be explained...even then that's less questions to be answered than the shit God supposedly did.

Bush: I don't know how the fuck he does those things but it's hard work. Keep the faith!

Kerry: If elected, I promise you will have an answer to these questions. Bush is going about it all wrong. We can do better.
User avatar
Zaelath
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4621
Joined: April 11, 2003, 5:53 am
Location: Canberra

Post by Zaelath »

Kerry might not have an answer for everything, and if you think anyone does you're a moron; (personally I think anyone that is a staunch republican is mildly retarded at best, same goes for democrats) however anyone that claims to make his decisions on how to direct the most powerful country in the world based on his imaginary friend scares me =p
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
User avatar
Arundel Pajo
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 660
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:53 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: concreteeye
Location: Austin Texas

Post by Arundel Pajo »

Rekaar. wrote:Why do you ... cling so tightly to the notion the President actually wanted to send troops in, strain ties with the UN, and bet his entire Presidency on pursuing Hussein when he clearly didn't stand to benefit from the move politically. (sic)
Probably because Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Kristol, Rove, et. al. have been creaming their pants over the idea of a war in Iraq since about 1993-95.

I suggest you check out the Project for a New American Century website. The president himself may not have been part of this organization (though Jeb was for a time), but he certainly is in a position to be influenced by them...
Hawking - 80 Necromancer, AOC Mannannan server, TELoE
Also currently enjoying Left 4 Dead on XBL. :)
Voronwë
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 7176
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:57 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Post by Voronwë »

So Rekaar you are suggesting that the President can't be held accountable for the types of agendas the people he hires for major cabinet positions will attempt to bring to the table?

maybe that's what happens when you let Dick Cheney head up the commission on who will be Bush's running mate.

Look if these guys took Bush by surprise with their eagerness to invade Iraq , then he is incompetant with respect to the responsibilities of the job of President of the United States.
User avatar
miir
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 11501
Joined: July 3, 2002, 3:06 pm
XBL Gamertag: miir1
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Post by miir »

bet his entire Presidency on pursuing Hussein when he clearly didn't stand to benefit from the move political
While they won't benefit politically, they most certainly will benefit financially.
I've got 99 problems and I'm not dealing with any of them - Lay-Z
Rekaar.
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 689
Joined: July 18, 2002, 8:44 pm
Contact:

Post by Rekaar. »

I think it's a big leap of faith on your part, voro, to say that the personal agendas you're referring to are not based in reality and are just emotionally motivated. We can both point to different sets of "experts" and "sources" all day long to support what we want to claim, but what it really comes down to is the underlying motivation. For you to imply that the only reason we went after Iraq was for personal reasons I believe you're ignoring more than you're accepting.

Likely you feel the reverse towards me =p

Do I think they had personal convictions about going in? Well of course they did! It's no secret that the defense of the homeland is a deeply personal issue for all of us, including them. What I don't think, is that they went into Iraq, fabricated all this "intelligence" in house and from other countries just to send our country into what they knew would be a long and costly war with no direct benefit to either their own political careers nor for the hundreds of thousands of military families that would be ultimately affected.

To put it simply, it seems you think the current administration is a bunch of bloodthirsty thugs leading the Bloodthirtsy Thug Party on a course of world domination through military force. I think they're just like you and me though, doing everything they can to make their country safe. It's a fundamental difference of opinion as to how they go about it vs what you would've done (in hindsight, mind you). That's soemthing I don't have any problem with. Differences of opinion like that are integral to the success of this society. What I do take issue with is these (to me) ridiculous claims that the President and his administration are somehow depraved.
Time makes more converts than reason. - Thomas Paine
User avatar
Arundel Pajo
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 660
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:53 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: concreteeye
Location: Austin Texas

Post by Arundel Pajo »

Rekaar. wrote: a course of world domination through military force.
Actually, that's almost a perfect paraphrase of the PNAC mission statement...

"...American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength..."
Hawking - 80 Necromancer, AOC Mannannan server, TELoE
Also currently enjoying Left 4 Dead on XBL. :)
Voronwë
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 7176
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:57 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Post by Voronwë »

in no way shape or form did i mean to communicate that i thought Wolfowitz, et al. held their opinions on Pre-emptive Military Action based on emotional states, or whatever.

I am confident that they have spent a lot of time thinking about the situation, and have a very well reasoned approach. I actually think there is potentially some merit to the approach. I can see the tactical appeal, and it may truly be the best approach if implemented properly in such a way that builds on our interests.

As much as anybody on any side of a political fence might like to say, the situation in Iraq was not a "for it or against it". "they" didn't "attack us". It was not defending the homeland. That is such propagandic tripe.

What the war in Iraq was meant to be, is a first step in the pre-emptive maneuver to engineer the political state of the Middle East to make it less of a hospitable environment for Anti-Western Islamic (Islamofacist if you are in a Republican thinktank) terrorism. I have been saying that for over a year and a half, while most persons of your political stripes have been saying it was WMDs, al qaeda, etc. That of course was false, was known to be false at the time, and i think the facts support both of those assertions.

I do think that they knowingly exaggerated the WMD to gain political traction. They knew they couldnt just say "look guys, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, their military has been completely nullified by 12 years of sanctions and containment. They pose a limited threat to their neighbors as well as the security of the United States compared to many states like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, North Korea, Pakistan, and the unfinished business in Afghanistan. But because they are in a maximally weakened position right now, we are going to invade them to set up a pro-Western 'democracy', get our market infrastructure in there to accomplish a few things. #1: increase our direct sphere of influence over a critical resource for our country: oil, and #2: start a domino effect that destabilizes anti-Western regimes in neighboring Iran and Syria. (Feel free to reverse the order of those).

Doing that would not have gotten the support, and Wolfowitz pretty much said that. WMDs and Terrorism built the political case for the war, and were frankly more marketable.

I think you could argue that the prosecution of post-war Iraq has shown many of the ideas of Wolfowitz, et al to have been short-sighted and unfortunately (for our troops and our strategic interest) completely incorrect as to the manner in which we would be greated (flowers and chocolates - a la Belgium in 1944). Cheney actually said that.

what i was trying to communicate is that it was not a secret that Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Libby, etc had these core convictions on the roll of US military force in the world - irregardless of the legitimacy of those convictions.

It would be unforgivably naive for anyone who was responsible to appoint them to a position to think that those convictions would not effect their agendas or the way they executed their responsibilites regarding the use of the military.
User avatar
Moonwynd
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 919
Joined: July 11, 2003, 5:05 am
Gender: Male
Location: Middle of nowhere

Post by Moonwynd »

Rekaar wrote:
To put it simply, it seems you think the current administration is a bunch of bloodthirsty thugs leading the Bloodthirtsy Thug Party on a course of world domination through military force. I think they're just like you and me though, doing everything they can to make their country safe. It's a fundamental difference of opinion as to how they go about it vs what you would've done (in hindsight, mind you). That's soemthing I don't have any problem with. Differences of opinion like that are integral to the success of this society. What I do take issue with is these (to me) ridiculous claims that the President and his administration are somehow depraved
I agree wholeheartedly.

I spend nearly every single day (at least for the past year or so) having "heated" discussions with my wife. I am most definitely a Republican and there is no doubt that my wife is a Democrat. We are about as polar opposites as two people can be...and you think Arnold and Maria have it bad....they have nothing on us.

What I find incredulous is that my wife...and mother in law...and father in law...and brother in law....etc...all think that President Bush has some hidden agenda. They, like many of the "conspiracy theory/Michael Mooreish liberals" are so closed minded even though they claim to be otherwise. I can accept the failings of the Bush administration. I do not agree with everything they do by any means (do not get me started on their immigration policy...or lack thereof). However I am bemused and often saddened at the way people subscribe to these various theories that President Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. have a hidden agenda and that the war in Iraq is about:

1. Winning one for Bush Sr.
2. Making money via Haliburton
3. Stealing the Iraqi oil supply

I do not buy into any of that neo-liberal conspiratorial BS.

Do I think that the reason for removing Hussein from power was to free the Iraqi people from a brutal and oppressive dictator? No, I do not. I truly think that the current administration and President Bush believed that Hussein had WMD's. The intelligence was wrong (I know there are other theories that the WMD's are still hidden...or have been smuggled to Iran or Syria...but there is no proof or evidence of that at all at this time). The intelligence came from our agencies (George Tenet was director of the CIA for far too long), British intelligence, Russian intelligence and the like. I believe the President acted out of his desire to make America safer by:

1. Removing a dictator that has been central in terrorism (although no substantial ties to 9/11)
a. His ties to terrorism have included his funding and payment to the families of terrorists (although Hussein himself is not a devout Muslim at all...and just uses the religion as a means to an end for his own desires)...as well as the known production of WMD's (biological and chemical agents) as evidenced by the genocide of the Kurds in Iraq and their use against the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war.
2. Establishing a Democracy in the Middle East (this could prove nearly impossible....not impossible...but nearly so) to create greater stability in the region.

When the President spoke after 9/11 he said the war on terror would last many years...over a decade. He said the costs would be high (paraphrase) in both money and lives. The reason for going to war (WMD's) did not manifest itself once we were there. The complete routing and almost unfettered advance into Baghdad was not planned for adequately. The Republican Guard, although many were killed, many more removed their uniforms and dispersed into the community. These are the many of the same people that are committing the car and roadside bombings and ambushes today. I think we thought that we would destroy most of the loyalists in sortees and then through tactical urban combat. When the resistence we expected did not materialize, we were left thinking the worst was over when in fact all of those loyalists who chose not to fight at the beginning decided to use guerilla tacticts when they came back as what we are now calling "insurgents". That lack of planning is why President Bush and his administration are taking the heat today.

I am not "sucking Bush/Republican cock". I am a realist. And given the record of Senator John Kerry over his career I would rather stick with the lesser of two evils and re-elect President Bush. If you take a long hard look at Kerry's career and his voting record you will see that his "flip flopping" comes out of a desire for personal political gain....he is a political opportunist and will pander to whichever group he needs to by adopting their cause or rallying cry at the time. I for one do not believe he could adequately protect us as a nation. All other things aside (domestic policy/economy, etc.), the President's number one duty is to protect the citizens of the United States of America. That is why I am voting how I am voting. No conspiracy theories...just common sense.

Respectfully,

Moon
User avatar
noel
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 10003
Joined: August 22, 2002, 1:34 am
Gender: Male
Location: Calabasas, CA

Post by noel »

Moon,

I respect your opinion, and I very much appreciate the manner in which you presented it. To some extent I agree. I have yet to see any evidence indicating that W. has a personal agenda. I think more likely, he is strongly influenced by his advisors. I don’t believe the current administration is evil or is purposefully deceiving people. I’m quite certain that they believe they’re doing the right thing at the right time.

I have however seen numerous evidence to suggest that both Cheney and his aide, Wolfowitz do have a personal agenda. The agendas I speak of aren’t something I am imagining. They’re policy documents that were written during the Clinton administration that speak of concepts like globalization, increasing our military. To paraphrase one of the concepts of Cheney’s documents ( written about in Esquire magazine) he believed that the US would and should be in a constant state of war in the future to show our military superiority, and to push our policies worldwide.

Very frankly, this isn’t a policy that I’m comfortable with at all. I truly believe that the Bush administration is significantly influenced by the policies and ideals of Cheney and Wolfowitz, and I think they’ve had an extremely negative impact on the United States both internally and externally.

If you do a reasonable amount of research on the subject of terrorism in the last 20 years, you’ll find that the President that did the most and had the strongest policies was Bill Clinton. I am by no means a democrat, nor am I a fan of Bill Clinton, but this is what my personal research has shown.

Respectfully,
Noel
Oh, my God; I care so little, I almost passed out.
User avatar
Zaelath
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4621
Joined: April 11, 2003, 5:53 am
Location: Canberra

Post by Zaelath »

You can call it a conspiracy theory, I call it simple maths.

The US is heavily dependant on oil and will do whatever it has to to secure the supply or face another oil shock and the inevitable collapse of it's economy.

Plenty of oil you say? Did you know there is very little OPEC can do at the moment to increase production? Yes there might well be 50 (?) years of oil left at the current rate of production but the logistics are not as simple as "just pump it faster".

Oil is not in giant vacant spaces in the ground like you see in children's books, it has to flow from the surrounding earth into the well and it does so at a set rate, which is about the rate they're pulling it out now.

The Dems will war for oil too if elected, but perhaps they will just be honest about it.
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
Voronwë
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 7176
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:57 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Post by Voronwë »

Moon-

Immediately following 9/11 Don Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz were pushing to invade Iraq. Bush and Cheney thought Afghanistan had to be the first step. My source is Bob Woodward and Richard Clarke, both interviewed seperately but appearing in the same show Frontline last night.

Oil was not the motive from a point of , "dude i'm an oil man, and all those buddies of mine give me $$ for the campaign....Let's hook them up!!"

but oil is a vital security issue for the United States, and it is central to why we have been involved in political engineering in the Middle East for 50+ years. It is part of the reason why the CIA helped Saddam Hussein rise to power in the first place. IT is why the CIA backed the Shah of Iran. It is why the CIA backed the Muhajadeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Jihadists wouldn't hate the United States if there was no oil in the Middle East, because we would have let them have their tribal wars and not given a shit, like we do with sub-Saharan Africa. A lot of the Jihadist anger against the West is that we have been influencing the political climate of those countries for decades. A central point of Al Qaeda's recruiting is that we have been "infidels in the Holy Land" - as well as Iranian funded Hezbollah attacks on the US in Saudi Arabia with our military bases and contractors there to work in the petrochemical industry as well as build the military bases.

There is no security interest in the Middle East for our country if those nations do not "float on a sea of oil" - to quote Paul Wolfowitz.
User avatar
miir
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 11501
Joined: July 3, 2002, 3:06 pm
XBL Gamertag: miir1
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Post by miir »

hehe
1. Removing a dictator that has been central in terrorism (although no substantial ties to 9/11)
a. His ties to terrorism have included his funding and payment to the families of terrorists (although Hussein himself is not a devout Muslim at all...and just uses the religion as a means to an end for his own desires)...as well as the known production of WMD's (biological and chemical agents) as evidenced by the genocide of the Kurds in Iraq and their use against the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war.
2. Establishing a Democracy in the Middle East (this could prove nearly impossible....not impossible...but nearly so) to create greater stability in the region.
1) Saddam has had very little to do with terrorism. Iraq had a secular (read:non islam) government. Terrorists are not big fans of secular government as most of their power is derived from religious fundamentalists. Saddam's government was not very susceptible to terrorist influence.

a) Yep, Saddam like nearly every other middle eastern politician/leader in the past 25 years has supported palestinian 'terrorists'. Some have been more secretive about it while others, like Saddam were very open in their support... even offering cash incentives.

You do realise that the chemical weapons used in the Iraq/Iran war and against the Kurds were supplied/sold to Iraq by the US, don't you?
Your government was buddies with Saddam back in the 80s.

You call it a genocide, but the fact is that the Kurds were actively involved in a violent uprising against Saddam. That basically amounts to a war. One could argue the use of chemical weapons on Kurdish civilians was military strategy much in the same way atomic bombs were used by the US in Japan.

2) Holding 'democratic elections' in Iraq will not make it a democracy. There were be (a) decade(s) of bloodshed between rival factions trying to gain control. Any 'US friendly' government installed in Iraq will not last long, nor will it have any credibility.
The 'controlled burn' of Saddams brutal dictatorship will be nothing compared to the shit that's yet to come.
I've got 99 problems and I'm not dealing with any of them - Lay-Z
Post Reply