Al Gore from 2000

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Remarks by Vice President Al Gore to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee Conference at the Washington Hilton Hotel, Washington, D.C., May 23, 2000. Excerpts:

Despite our swift victory and our efforts since, there is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein still seeks to amass weapons of mass destruction. You know as well as I do that as long as Saddam Hussein stays in power there can be no comprehensive peace for the people of Israel or the people of the Middle East. We have made it clear that it is our policy to see Saddam Hussein gone.

We have sought coalitions of opponents to challenge his power. I have met with the Iraqi opposition and I have invited them to meet with me again next month, when I will encourage them to further unite in their efforts against Saddam.

We have maintained sanctions in the face of rising criticism, while improving the oil-for-food program to help the Iraqi people directly. We have used force when necessary, and that has been frequently. And we will not let up in our efforts to free Iraq from Saddam's rule. Should he think of challenging us, I would strongly advise against it. As a senator, I voted for the use of force, as vice president I supported the use of force. If entrusted with the presidency, my resolve will never waiver. Never waiver.

What happened to this Al Gore I wonder. Could it mearly be a political shell game? nahhh....never

[Aaeamdar]

Probably the same thing that happened to me and a lot of other people that supported the war. We found out it was all based on lies.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

This is from 2000 Aem.

[Animalor]

The diff between the current administration and Gore is that he probably wouldn't have told the UN and everyone else to fuck off and went in guns blazin.

[Sylvus]

This is from 2000 Aem.

Yeah, when Gore supported the war. And when Aeamdar probably supported it too. And then they found out the war was based mostly on lies, and changed their minds.

It's not that hard to follow...

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

This is from 2000 Aem.

Yeah, when Gore supported the war. And when Aeamdar probably supported it too. And then they found out the war was based mostly on lies, and changed their minds.

It's not that hard to follow...

Syl, there was no push for a war on Iraq back then. This is pre-9/11. This is a democrat talking about the common sense need to rid of Saddam. You would think it's not hard to follow, yet you and aem seem to be having a problem with it.

[Forthe]

This is from 2000 Aem.

Yeah, when Gore supported the war. And when Aeamdar probably supported it too. And then they found out the war was based mostly on lies, and changed their minds.

It's not that hard to follow...

Syl, there was no push for a war on Iraq back then. This is pre-9/11. This is a democrat talking about the common sense need to rid of Saddam. You would think it's not hard to follow, yet you and aem seem to be having a problem with it.

Use smaller words Sylvus.

[Sylvus]

Gore no like Saddam. Syl and Aeamdar no like Saddam. Saddam bad.

Bush no like Saddam. Bush tell us bad man have big booms. Bush say we must kill Saddam with war. Gore and Syl and Aeamdar agree that big booms are bad in the hands of bad man.

Bush blows up Saddam. Bush blows up Saddam's country. Bush kills many not bad Iraqi people. Bush makes many not bad American people die too. Bush was wrong about bad man having big booms. Bush maybe lied about bad man having big booms.

Syl and Aeamdar and Gore no like bad man Bush telling lie. Change minds about war being good.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

LOL

You guys are too funny. He made his own assessment that Saddam was bad. Did he lie to himself? Why do you think Bush lied? I still find this fucking hilarious. Where the fucking lie? I don't see one. All responsible parties know he had them. They all know he would not let the UN inspectors in to see evidence of their destruction. He brought this war unto himself. Why can't you fuckign idiots see this? Why?

[Xzion]

Saddam is bad, the king of Morocco is bad, the king of saudi arabia is bad, george bush is bad, the leaders of maybe 75% of the african countrys are bad...so on and so fourth

You dont see us "liberating" the african people, or "liberating the saudi arabian people"
There is a huge difference between calling someone bad, and lieng about that person in order to decieve your countrymen into supporting an unjustified war

[Zaelath]

Hrmm, gee, I wonder. If I'm a tyranically dictator who's hold on power is purely a measure of the fear I engender in my own people, would it be wise to overtly destroy all my weapons? Possibly not.

On the other hand, would it be wise to quietly dispose of said weapons so that the weapons inspectors don't have anything to find? Perhaps, it's not an ideal situation for me but it's better than an American invasion.

Now, given I've already disposed of the weapons, how EXACTLY do I produce and destroy them in front of Gee Dubya when they don't exist any more? Well, isn't that a quandry.

Seriously, if you can't find significant caches of the weapons Sadam was hiding in some kind of massive shell game, then you can't say "he should have just turned them over and we would have all had a tea party".

That you pretend to believe that is rediculous in itself; the goal was never WMD, it was regime change. America has wanted Sadam out since the honeymoon ended, and I'm not saying that's a bad thing in and of itself, but your attempt to justify a war based on the failure to produce something that you can't prove existed when you asked to see it would be pure hillarity in any other circumstance.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Hrmm, gee, I wonder. If I'm a tyranically dictator who's hold on power is purely a measure of the fear I engender in my own people, would it be wise to overtly destroy all my weapons? Possibly not.

On the other hand, would it be wise to quietly dispose of said weapons so that the weapons inspectors don't have anything to find? Perhaps, it's not an ideal situation for me but it's better than an American invasion.

Now, given I've already disposed of the weapons, how EXACTLY do I produce and destroy them in front of Gee Dubya when they don't exist any more? Well, isn't that a quandry.

Seriously, if you can't find significant caches of the weapons Sadam was hiding in some kind of massive shell game, then you can't say "he should have just turned them over and we would have all had a tea party".

That you pretend to believe that is rediculous in itself; the goal was never WMD, it was regime change. America has wanted Sadam out since the honeymoon ended, and I'm not saying that's a bad thing in and of itself, but your attempt to justify a war based on the failure to produce something that you can't prove existed when you asked to see it would be pure hillarity in any other circumstance.

Holy shit, do you know this for certain? OMG dude you need to contact the White House and fill them in on this info. Man are they going to be embarassed when they find this out.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

A Course Set by Congress
By Colbert I. King
Saturday, March 8, 2003; Page A23
The Washington Post

[excerpt]

Believe it or not, the American call for "regime change" in Iraq didn't start with George W. Bush. For that, we must return to the days of the 105th Congress, when Bill Clinton occupied the White House. Recall a piece of legislation dubbed the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" (Public Law 105-338). Not only did it call for Saddam Hussein's ouster, it also spelled out the goal of replacing his regime with a democratic Iraq.

Here's what the law says: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

You may think the Iraq Liberation Act was ramrodded down the throats of reluctant Democrats by a House and Senate dominated by conservative Republicans. Consider the final tally: The House passed the bill by a vote of 360 to 38, with 157 Democrats joining 202 Republicans and the House's one independent to back the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime. The act, with bipartisan cosponsorship of two Democrats and six Republicans, also passed the Senate by unanimous consent. And Bill Clinton signed it into law on Oct. 31, 1998, declaring at the time that the evidence was overwhelming that freedom and the rule of law "will not happen under the current Iraq leadership."

Yes, regime change has been articulated by the administration, world without end. Bush did it again during his televised news conference on Thursday night. But that policy, along with support for a defeated Iraq's transition to democracy, was embraced years earlier by Bill Clinton and a bipartisan Congress.

Full Commentary: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 3Mar7.html

What was it DX used to say?

[Zaelath]

Holy shit, do you know this for certain? OMG dude you need to contact the White House and fill them in on this info. Man are they going to be embarassed when they find this out.

No, but it passes the "what's likely" test, where as Saddam believing he could hold off a US invasion and hide in Iraq so kept on hiding weapons instead, does not.

Yet, you persist in calling anyone who doesn't believe your fairy tale a "fuckign idiot" [sic]

Hell, they're not even saying it's impossible that there isn't a stockpile somewhere, just that you have no proof, yet you state their existence as an incontrovertible fact. I'm sure your confidence hasn't even been shaken by the US discrediting their own intelligence source in Iraq and raiding his home last week.

Besides, answer the questions:

How do I destroy something in front of you that does not exist? (edit: not, oops)

Do you honesty believe the US would not have invaded Iraq if Saddam had produced "a" stockpile of weapons for destruction, or would that have just been the proof that there was more?

If Saddam did have weapons, what emergency was he waiting for in his rat hole to use them? The Wiggles trying to hold a concert in Kabalah?

[Forthe]

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

There is a very very large leap from "supporting efforts" and "promote the emergence of" to invading a country without cause and killing over 10,000 civilians.

Note I still disagree with the first as it is tampering with the internal affairs of another sovereign state but I'd classify supporting rebel groups under a dictatorship on the lower end of the shit the US does around the globe (i.e. helping a military coup replace a democratically elected government with a dictator).

[Markulas]

ouch the truth hurts.

[Lohrno]

The Wiggles trying to hold a concert in Kabalah?

That would prompt me to use weapons of mass destruction at leat.

-=Lohrno

[Arundel Pajo]

This is from 2000 Aem.

While the Gore quotes *are* an interesting example of how politicians of both sides can change their minds seemingly on a whim, the date is irrelevant.

Mid, there was a concerted effort to push for an Iraq invasion as far back as the start of Clinton's second term - possibly as far back as his first.

The Project for a New American Century (PNAC), an interest group composed of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney, Rove, Kagan, and several others, had presented letters (which are available on their website) to Clinton fairly early on, as well as made speeches before congress. Though not yet in cabinet posts, these people wielded considerable influence even then - the drums of war may not have been beating as loudly as they were post-9/11, but rest assured that they *were* already beating.

They were largely pushing the same agenda and causus belli then, too, of weapons of mass destruction and imminent threat to the US. Given the amount of influence and awareness they had in Washington, it is almost impossible that Gore had *not* heard their case.

That's sorta long winded....but I guess what I'm saying is that 9/11 was not the start of the Iraq push - it was just when it became a popular subject in the press and when the politicians became more vocal and urgent with it. The PNAC sort of used 9/11 as a springboard of sorts, but they had their goal in mind for several years prior.

[Arundel Pajo]

Here's one such letter from 1998, in fact - invoking WMD even back then...

http://newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

[Skogen]

Give up. I recommend not to even bother repsonfing to Midnight's posts about politics. He'll never get it. NEVER.

[Kylere]

Sounds to me as if the intelligence community was telling both Gore and Bush that Saddam had WMD's. If Gore had become president and 911 had happened there is no reason to assume we would not also have been involved in Iraq.

I personally feel based on the character that Gore has shown that it would have been indecisive and quibbling, and nothing would have been accomplished whatsoever.

Did Bush make the right call? Well some of you think he is dumb, and Gore is smart, sounds to me like based on the data given to them, they both reached the same conclusion. I have yet to see a single shred of evidence that Bush knew there were no WMDs and decided to go anyways. I think if that was in fact the case, then Colin Powell would have called him out publically on it prior to us ever deploying troops.

[Bubba Grizz]

Gore lost the election so why should he give a shit anymore. Had he won we might not have even had a 9/11 issue.

[Sylvus]

I personally feel based on the character that Gore has shown that it would have been indecisive and quibbling, and nothing would have been accomplished whatsoever.

What exactly have we accomplished and at what price? Saddam has been removed from power, there is one thing. Anything else?

Ten thousand Iraqis are dead. Up near one thousand coalition troops are dead. Gas is more expensive. Much of the world - which pretty much completely loved us after 9/11 - has a pretty poor view of our country right now.

No one in this thread has said that if Gore had done the same things that Bush has done that they would have excused it. If I may speak for others, I don't think any of us would. If Gore had done the same things that Bush has done I'd feel the exact same way about him that I do about Bush. But he didn't. I don't care for either of them but the fact remains that Bush is the one who was in the position to make the decisions and that Bush is the one who defied the UN and that Bush is the one who came on tv and told me that "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." I'm still wondering why we haven't seen them, when the bombing of baghdad began 48 hours after that statement was made. Did Saddam spend the next two days getting rid of his WMDs?

[Voronwë]

Sounds to me as if the intelligence community was telling both Gore and Bush that Saddam had WMD's. If Gore had become president and 911 had happened there is no reason to assume we would not also have been involved in Iraq.

I

we'd have a war with Afghanistan, but since Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Cheney wouldnt have been in his administration, i'm actually of the opinion that we would not have gone to war with Iraq.

Contaiment appears to have been working. Iraq's military was totally impotent which we saw last year. There was hardly a massive war machine cranking out a new generation of weapons.

Meanwhile, Iran, North Korea, and Libya all were working on real nuclear programs. Kind of wierd how Qadafi (sp.) has become something of a positive figure for voluntarily disarming his nukes. I wonder if he bought the stuff simply to divulge it so he could get back in good graces with Europe.

Anyway, i'm sure a few Al Qaeda guys were in Iraq. There are a few in every country of consequence on the planet, and they are probably actively working to infiltrate military organizations to get access to WMDs, intelligence, or whatever.

So long story longer, i don't see why we would be at war with Iraq had Gore been president, since it HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH NINE ELEVEN.

AT ALL.

[Winnow]

Meanwhile, Iran, North Korea, and Libya all were working on real nuclear programs. Kind of wierd how Qadafi (sp.) has become something of a positive figure for voluntarily disarming his nukes. I wonder if he bought the stuff simply to divulge it so he could get back in good graces with Europe.

You don't think Muammar Gaddafi wasn't influenced by watching us roll through Iraq? I think that played a big part in it. You can comment about our poor handling of Iraq after the initial invasion but when the US is set to roll over a country, it's pretty impressive to watch. I'd be intimidated if I was some shit country like Libya that has been a thorn in the side of the US for a long time.

[Forthe]

I have yet to see a single shred of evidence that Bush knew there were no WMDs and decided to go anyways.

Well he certainly didn't know there were WMDs but he stated that he did as absolutes facts. Rumsfeld stated he knew where the WMD were located. Cheny was still linking Sadam to 9/11 and the niger uranium in speeches well after those 2 points had been rebuked. Powell used the aluminum tubes when there was plenty of experts in the US stating they were not suitable for uranium enrichment.

The real issue isn't that they had bad intelligence, it is they represented weak intelligence as absolute fact. That is misrepresentation. They lied.

[Siji]

Give up. I recommend not to even bother repsonfing to Midnight's posts about politics. He'll never get it. NEVER.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner! Give that man a gerbil!

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Give up. I recommend not to even bother repsonfing to Midnight's posts about politics. He'll never get it. NEVER.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner! Give that man a gerbil!

Yeah good attitude. By not listening you'll be sure to stay right where you are intellectually. While I don't agree with many either, I listen and learn.

[Boogahz]

You don't think Muammar Gaddafi wasn't influenced by watching us roll through Iraq? I think that played a big part in it. You can comment about our poor handling of Iraq after the initial invasion but when the US is set to roll over a country, it's pretty impressive to watch. I'd be intimidated if I was some shit country like Libya that has been a thorn in the side of the US for a long time.

Trying to get the timeline straight, I think that he started the process before we ever went to Iraq.

[Adelrune Argenti]

You have to remember that the Clinton adminstration started calling for "regime change" in Iraq. This was prior to all 9/11 issues. What Gore was doing was backing up his own administration's view of what was happening in Iraq and what needed to be done. At the time of this speech, Hussein already had the history of stalling UN investigators.

I don't think it is going out on a limb to say Gore and Clinton both believed there were possible WMD in Iraq at the time. The problem was getting verification on the ground that they didn't exist. Just like what this administration had seen. However, coupled with the 9/11 attacks and the new hot spot of Afghanistan, the Bush administration decided to move into Iraq to eliminate what they felt was a credible threat. This decision has so far proven to be fraught with troublesome outcomes however the one result that did come out of it was regime change. And that was something all of them wanted.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

You have to remember that the Clinton adminstration started calling for "regime change" in Iraq. This was prior to all 9/11 issues. What Gore was doing was backing up his own administration's view of what was happening in Iraq and what needed to be done. At the time of this speech, Hussein already had the history of stalling UN investigators.

I don't think it is going out on a limb to say Gore and Clinton both believed there were possible WMD in Iraq at the time. The problem was getting verification on the ground that they didn't exist. Just like what this administration had seen. However, coupled with the 9/11 attacks and the new hot spot of Afghanistan, the Bush administration decided to move into Iraq to eliminate what they felt was a credible threat. This decision has so far proven to be fraught with troublesome outcomes however the one result that did come out of it was regime change. And that was something all of them wanted.

Now there is an intelligent unbiased opinion. Thank you Adel.

[Kylere]

I think they presented as fact what the intelligence community presented as fact.

I refuse to believe someone like Colin Powell would lie about such an issue, I think Cheney is utter fucking scum, I think GW is a pawn, but Powell is a good human being.

So you can call it lying all you want, but I believe it was a failure by an intelligence community gutted by the piss poor policies over 8 years of the Clinton administration.

[Forthe]

You have to remember that the Clinton adminstration started calling for "regime change" in Iraq. This was prior to all 9/11 issues. What Gore was doing was backing up his own administration's view of what was happening in Iraq and what needed to be done. At the time of this speech, Hussein already had the history of stalling UN investigators.

How much of the "stalling" was due to the CIA (under Clinton for our right wing partisans) using the UN inspections as cover for their snooping? How much further along would we have been without that interference?

I don't think it is going out on a limb to say Gore and Clinton both believed there were possible WMD in Iraq at the time. The problem was getting verification on the ground that they didn't exist. Just like what this administration had seen. However, coupled with the 9/11 attacks and the new hot spot of Afghanistan, the Bush administration decided to move into Iraq to eliminate what they felt was a credible threat. This decision has so far proven to be fraught with troublesome outcomes however the one result that did come out of it was regime change. And that was something all of them wanted.

There is a difference between wanting something and being willing to kill thousands of innocents to get it. I would expect most rational human beings would require hard evidence before they would be willing to make that leap.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

It's your opinion onhow hard the evidence needs to be. Hindsight is 20/20. You can easily makes these claims now. There are so many things people would do differently if they only had the power of looking into the future. When you are responsible for over 300 million people, you make the best decisions you can with the evidence you have in their best interest.

[Forthe]

I think they presented as fact what the intelligence community presented as fact.

I refuse to believe someone like Colin Powell would lie about such an issue, I think Cheney is utter fucking scum, I think GW is a pawn, but Powell is a good human being.

So you can call it lying all you want, but I believe it was a failure by an intelligence community gutted by the piss poor policies over 8 years of the Clinton administration.

I think Colin Powell is a good person put in a bad spot. I've read enough about his clashes with the chicken hawks to come to that conclusion. I would guess he thought he could do more (any) good staying at his position than leaving it but when you are ordered by the president to do something, you do it even if you don't like it.

Houston Wood was a consultant who worked on the Oak Ridge analysis of the tubes. He watched Powell’s speech, too.

“I guess I was angry, that’s the best way to describe my emotions. I was angry at that,” says Wood, who is among the world’s authorities on uranium enrichment by centrifuge. He found the tubes couldn’t be what the CIA thought they were. They were too heavy, three times too thick and certain to leak.

"Wasn't going to work. They would have failed," says Wood, who reached that conclusion back in 2001.

Thielmann reported to Secretary Powell’s office that they were confident the tubes were not for a nuclear program. Then, about a year later, when the administration was building a case for war, the tubes were resurrected on the front page of The New York Times.

“I thought when I read that there must be some other tubes that people were talking about. I just was flabbergasted that people were still pushing that those might be centrifuges,” says Wood.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/ ... 7975.shtml

[Forthe]

It's your opinion onhow hard the evidence needs to be. Hindsight is 20/20. You can easily makes these claims now. There are so many things people would do differently if they only had the power of looking into the future. When you are responsible for over 300 million people, you make the best decisions you can with the evidence you have in their best interest.

Yes my opinion is that the evidence needs to be solid before you kill people. I also believe that when parts of your evidence are debuked before you start the killing that should cause you to pause and re-evaluate the rest of your intelligence rather than rushing ahead. I said the same thing before the invasion fucknut.

PS. A Canadian should not have to correct you on the population of your own country.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

It's your opinion onhow hard the evidence needs to be. Hindsight is 20/20. You can easily makes these claims now. There are so many things people would do differently if they only had the power of looking into the future. When you are responsible for over 300 million people, you make the best decisions you can with the evidence you have in their best interest.

Yes my opinion is that the evidence needs to be solid before you kill people. I also believe that when parts of your evidence are debuked before you start the killing that should cause you to pause and re-evaluate the rest of your intelligence rather than rushing ahead. I said the same thing before the invasion fucknut.

PS. A Canadian should not have to correct you on the population of your own country.

U.S. 293,356,479
World 6,369,091,130
14:49 EDT May 28, 2004

Not too far off. I haven't been in school far many years. I was guessing.

[Kylere]

Actually the population of the US is OVER 300 million. The July 2003 estimate was 290,342,554 by the office of the Census ( pulled from http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fac ... os/us.html ) but that does not count illegal aliens, and I KNOW there are more than 10 million illegals in the country.

It is silly to labor such a point, but the comment was snide and had no value Forthe, you may not like Mydnyte, or his politics but the facts are the facts.

[Forthe]

Actually the population of the US is OVER 300 million. The July 2003 estimate was 290,342,554 by the office of the Census ( pulled from http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fac ... os/us.html ) but that does not count illegal aliens, and I KNOW there are more than 10 million illegals in the country.

It is silly to labor such a point, but the comment was snide and had no value Forthe, you may not like Mydnyte, or his politics but the facts are the facts.

heh

Midnyte pulls random numbers out of his butt.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

WTF are you talking about Forthe?

[Forthe]

WTF are you talking about Forthe?

Saddam known for killing over a million of his own people...

Go ahead and back that up. How many of those killed were in uprisings\coup attempts?

[Winnow]

Go ahead and back that up. How many of those killed were in uprisings\coup attempts?

If you're an evil dictator it makes it ok to kill people in uprisings and coup attempts? Those don't count damnit! We need proof he's killed innocent old ladies that worshiped him.

[Sylvus]

How many people were killed in United States Civil War? Would you consider those Confederates that were killed to have been murdered by the President?

I'm not defending the actions of Saddam, I think he was a terrible guy, but I don't think that killing those people who are trying to stage a coup or engaging in a civil war is the same as killing people for sport or torturing them to death as he is purported to have done.

[Forthe]

Go ahead and back that up. How many of those killed were in uprisings\coup attempts?

If you're an evil dictator it makes it ok to kill people in uprisings and coup attempts? Those don't count damnit! We need proof he's killed innocent old ladies that worshiped him.

Well just about any government in the world will put down any attempt to overthrow them. March on the White House tomorrow and see what kind of reception you get.

And we have proof of the shit Saddam did. Thousands of people were executed or disappeared in his prisons. The guy was brutal and paranoid but making up numbers that would put him on par with real psychos like Stalin is just false.

[Kylere]

There was a place on time where the locals decided they did not like the leadership, so they started to destroy shipping, and even lauched direct attacks against the representatives and soldiers of their goverment.
They had the nerve to raise a rag tag group of rebels to confront the evil Dictatorial Overlord of Empire. They slaughtered thousands of soldiers sent to stop them. Thanks to them the US does not bow to the Queen.

So the numbers of people killed in direct attacks on Saddam Hussein cannot really count against them, no one is denying a government the ability to put down revolution. But Saddam went beyond that and gassed those who disagreed with him, and the families of those who dared to take up arms against him. Hell he was worse than the Brits,

[Aaeamdar]

All of which is mostly irrelevant. What you describe is not unique to Iraq. The US does not just invade countries because they are run by brutal dictators. If we did, we would be involved in much more than Iraq.

Maybe the US should act militarily to create government changes whenever we see serious HR violations. But, GWB did not present the case for the invasion of Iraq based on a policy that the US should liberate the Iraqi people from Sadam's brutal dictatorship. Bush presented the UN, our allies and the american people with a case for the invasion of Iraq based on WMDs and the imminent threat they posed. That was a lie.

At first it looked like an honest mistake; the result of reasonable reliance on poor intellegence. Then, as time passed and more and more information came out (and as WMDs were simply no where to be found), it became clear that the deception was intentional.

Now the mantra (as it has been for some time) of the administration is the "liberation" of the Iraqi people. We may very well have done that (although the detainee abuse scandle put a rather large blemish on that as well). But whether in the long run what we did was good or not, its was all based on a lie. No amount of pointing out that Sadam was a really bad guy will change that.

[Arundel Pajo]

But Saddam went beyond that and gassed those who disagreed with him, and the families of those who dared to take up arms against him.

I'm too lazy to link you to the other thread where I talked about the gas thing...but basically it wasn't as simple as "Saddam gassed his own people." It wasn't even as simple as "Saddam gassed the Kurds." In fact, despite that there are strong leanings toward that conclusion, it's not even 100% certain that Saddam gassed anybody at all.

There are plenty of reasons out there to hate the guy, and plenty of examples of his brutality that are better to use and more rock-solid. Please use any one of those rather than this example, which is rife with speculation, which the intelligence community is split on, and which most people only echo because the administration says it's so. Et tu, yellowcake?

Next thing you know, people will be saying that he threw premature babies out of incubators, or something...

...oh, wait.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

No. It's because his people say it is so.

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/iraq/chemicalali.htm

[Arundel Pajo]

Mid - I like that source. It was a very interesting read.

But see...it's also exactly what I'm talking about in that it's vague. There are critical statements missing in there that would be required for certain guilt. Read my post in the other thread - there are very strong suspicions that he did it. I totally think he did it...I totally agree with you. But because of omissions in the tapes, and similar (though not quite as strong) evidence against Iran, there is still a certain amount of question as to where the gas actually came from when it was used. That's where I get hung up - on people's repeating of this as a total iron-clad certainty when it's apparently a little more tricky than that.

Chemical Ali there, bastard though he is, nowhere in those transcripts says he *used* weapons...he talks about threatening to use them, and his plan to use them.

More damning among those transcripts, because it *is* a real admission, is the last segment on bulldozing.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Nod Arun. I understand what you mean.