Mr Spinkles
Mr
Oh boy....the Bush bashing has commenced. Whenever the 'other guy' is in power, EVERYTHING that goes wrong is suddenly the President's fault it. Sigh...
At any rate, I am enjoying this discussion also.
1)
Let's look at the WMD issue for a moment: A war has taken place. Lots of Iraqi military sites have been destroyed. Fighting continues one year later, and most of our troops are worried about security--not searching every ammunition dump (and there are many of them the size of Manhatten). For those who aid our forces, their lives and the lives of their families are threatened by those still loyal to Saddam. In fact, we have been having a hard time getting Iraqis to come forward and testify against Saddam for his war crimes, because there is so much danger.
So is it really a surprise that all of Saddam's predicted stockpiles of Sarin gas--thought to occupy the volume of a swimming pool--have not yet been found? Did you know that Iraqi forces are thought to have hidden and destroyed WMD even as our troops were entering Baghdad as part of Saddam's final orders? If Saddam had no WMD, what happened to all the WMD he had after the Gulf War...did he export them to other countries/groups (uh-oh), or destroy them without telling anyone? Why would he continue to obstruct the work of the U.N. inspectors if he had no WMD? As I said in an earlier post, what are these-- http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq...ants/index.html --ice cream trucks?
Bush did not say Saddam was an immediate threat, he said Saddam was an imminent threat. Be careful with word choice.
Earlier, you provided a list of reasons you think we should not have invaded Iraq. One of the reasons was that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, either--but that is irrelevant.
And here is what the National Intelligence Council has to say:
I also think this is relevant, from the same article:
At any rate, I am enjoying this discussion also.
1)
Bush said there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11? I don't remember him saying that...could you please provide quotes?The reason America initially went into war was that Bush indicated a connection with Saddam and terrorism against the US and that his so-called WMD's in his possession (but never found) was an immediate threat tio the US.
Let's look at the WMD issue for a moment: A war has taken place. Lots of Iraqi military sites have been destroyed. Fighting continues one year later, and most of our troops are worried about security--not searching every ammunition dump (and there are many of them the size of Manhatten). For those who aid our forces, their lives and the lives of their families are threatened by those still loyal to Saddam. In fact, we have been having a hard time getting Iraqis to come forward and testify against Saddam for his war crimes, because there is so much danger.
So is it really a surprise that all of Saddam's predicted stockpiles of Sarin gas--thought to occupy the volume of a swimming pool--have not yet been found? Did you know that Iraqi forces are thought to have hidden and destroyed WMD even as our troops were entering Baghdad as part of Saddam's final orders? If Saddam had no WMD, what happened to all the WMD he had after the Gulf War...did he export them to other countries/groups (uh-oh), or destroy them without telling anyone? Why would he continue to obstruct the work of the U.N. inspectors if he had no WMD? As I said in an earlier post, what are these-- http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq...ants/index.html --ice cream trucks?
Bush did not say Saddam was an immediate threat, he said Saddam was an imminent threat. Be careful with word choice.
I'd like to avoid a debate about Bush and stick to a non-partisan discussion of American foreign policy, if possible. At any rate, in foriegn policy, other countries are not on trial--they are not innocent until proven guilty. The only way to confirm anything was with Saddam's full cooperation. "Unconfirmed information"? There was overwhelming evidence that Saddam had WMD--even France's intelligence agencies will tell you that--and it was impossible to know for certain without Saddam's full cooperation.This was absolutely false. Mr. Bush used the emotional state of this country and knowingly provided unconfirmed information to incite the country resulting in the US declaring war for for the wrong reasons.....This to me is very relevant.
Earlier, you provided a list of reasons you think we should not have invaded Iraq. One of the reasons was that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, either--but that is irrelevant.
So, even though Hans Blix couldn't prove, sans Iraqi cooperation, that Saddam had WMD's any more, we should have taken his word for it? When would there have been a need for force--when Saddam finally used WMD, or when he started fully cooperating? Let's face it--after 11 years of deception, Saddam NEVER had any intention of cooperating, and we could NEVER be sure he didn't have WMD without his cooperation.2. There have been no WMD found in Iraq by either UN inspectors or by US inspectors.
Hans Blix indicated that he did not think the WMD's Hussein had at one time even still existed but he had to make a thorough search. Mr. Scott, a US inspector has come to the same conclusion. Yes, Saddam was not cooperative and making it difficult for the inspectors. The fact remains, despite the slow going and obstacles put up by Saddam, the inspections were continuing. There was no need for force at that time.
Was this the same speech in which Colin Powell showed diagrams of flatbed trucks that were being used as mobile WMD labs? The CIA has confirmed this--refer to the link above about ice cream trucks.3. Some of the evidence cited by the US, such as Colin Powell's address to the UN, stated that the US had knowledge of WMD's and some of their locations. It ended up the information cited was from a 4 yr. old doctoral thesis writtin by a British student and passed on to the US by British Intelligence. It was never confirmed by our Intelligence.
civilcynic, this is unabashed political rhetoric....I thought you were better than this kind of misleading propoganda. The intelligence community stood firmly behind their assessments on Iraq. Here are the Key Judgements made by the CIA in October of 2002:In fact, during this time, our Intelligence community kept telling the Bush administration that the information regarding these weapons were NOT able to be confirmed and may not be accurate but Bush continued to use them as if the information was fact.
from http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htmSince inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.
Iraq's growing ability to sell oil illicitly increases Baghdad's capabilities to finance WMD programs; annual earnings in cash and goods have more than quadrupled.
Iraq largely has rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production.
Baghdad has exceeded UN range limits of 150 km with its ballistic missiles and is working with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which allow for a more lethal means to deliver biological and, less likely, chemical warfare agents.
Although Saddam probably does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them.
How quickly Iraq will obtain its first nuclear weapon depends on when it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.
If Baghdad acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material from abroad, it could make a nuclear weapon within a year.
Without such material from abroad, Iraq probably would not be able to make a weapon until the last half of the decade.
And here is what the National Intelligence Council has to say:
from http://www.odci.gov/nic/articles_iraq_wmd.htmLet me be clear: The NIE judged with high confidence that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 km limit imposed by the UN Security Council, and with moderate confidence that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons. These judgments were essentially the same conclusions reached by the United Nations and by a wide array of intelligence servicesfriendly and unfriendly alike. The only government in the world that claimed that Iraq was not working on, and did not have, biological and chemical weapons or prohibited missile systems was in Baghdad. Moreover, in those cases where US intelligence agencies disagreed, particularly regarding whether Iraq was reconstituting a uranium enrichment effort for its nuclear weapons program, the alternative views were spelled out in detail.
I also think this is relevant, from the same article:
I also worry that analysts laboring under a barrage of allegations will become more and more disinclined to make judgments that go beyond ironclad evidencea scarce commodity in our business. If this is allowed to happen, the Nation will be poorly served by its Intelligence Community and ultimately much less secure. Fundamentally, the Intelligence Community increasingly will be in danger of not connecting the dots until the dots have become a straight line.
I concede this.3. Re: evidence I could provide that would indicate that the US was involved in Saddam's build-up of WMD's: I cannot provde the exact document that I had read at the time (it was a long time ago), however, there are a number of sources if one does a search for "Iraqgate". In the early 80's, Pres. Reagan and his administration (many of which are in the current Bush administration) assisted Saddam in building his military might. We provided funding, weaponry
So these were American companies, and not the federal government....and our American companies shipped biological and chemical material to Saddam for his war against Iran. We even were able to override that UN who opposed providing ths material and wanted to place sanctions on this type of material.