Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[quote=TnHilltopper;1340908]Rggr, I understand that there are democrats who are also stating this. My personal position is that I give little if any credibility to the current administration and even less faith in congress. I personally will wait for the assessment of military commanders as in my opinion they have far more credibility for obvious reasons.[quote]
macmeal I think the obvious answer is Saddam was always more concerned about his immediate enemy next door -Iran. He did not want to admit he had nothing... because he wanted Iran to continue to think he might have something. After Desert Storm he thought the U.S. was bluffing again and would not actually go through with an attack on Iraq. I read somewhere that when he finally realized an attack was imminent he tried to send an envoy through bureaucratic channels to have an "undercover meeting" with Bush but was rebuked. I'll try to dig it up if I can. A classic case of cultural misunderstandings.
And I can't believe that freight trains of anything would not have been discovered by now, after all the efforts to find that WMD, including huge rewards for any Iraqi that could talk about what happened to it or lead to it.
Good points---I hadn't thought of the "bluffing Iran" angle. And yes, I do seem to recall the attempt at an 11th-hour "meeting" which was rebuked--like you, I can't recall specifics.....
MacMeal, my response ended up getting buried by going off topic, my apologies. Anyway, I hope this answers your question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
I realize that some of what I stated previously and what I am about to state may be very unpopular; however, I was never one to shy away from controversy, even if it proves me to be incorrect.
First off, my reason for posting that list was to show that from the onset of the Iraq invasion, the Bush administration stated that WMD’s did exist and that we knew where they were when in fact they did not really know, so thus they lied. I do believe that Iraq and Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction at some point because we, the United States still have the receipt for some of them. However, they continued to state the existence of weapons of mass destruction well into 2003, when nearly a year before they had pretty clear evidence to the contrary. (According to Ray McGovern below) When a person or group repeatedly use false pretense or simply outright lie, then I tend not to give them much credit when in the future, claims and assertions of truth are offered.
The WMD’s we knew they had at one point.
March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. (10)
May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. (3)
May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. (7)
3. Kurt Nimno. AlterNet. September 23, 2002
7. Riegle Report: Dual Use Exports. Senate Committee on Banking. May 25, 1994
10. Glen Rangwala. Labor Left Briefing, 16 September 2002
According to Ray McGovern (retired CIA under seven U.S. presidents over 27 years and presented the morning intelligence briefings at the White House for many years.)
Consider, for example, the daring recruitment in mid-2002 of Saddam Hussein's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, who was "turned" into working for the CIA and quickly established his credibility. Sabri told us there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
My former colleagues, perhaps a bit naively, were quite sure this would come as a vast relief to President George W. Bush and his advisers. Instead, they were told that the White House had no further interest in reporting from Sabri; rather, that the issue was not really WMD, it was "regime change."
Note that Naji Sabri was brought in with the hopes of providing proof of WMD’s.
As to why Saddam Hussein didn’t simply open the doors and allow inspectors full access, I have no idea and it was clearly a mistake on his part. Saddam did play cat and mouse with UN inspectors and for his part he departed the world at the end of a rope. There is no doubt that Saddam was a pretty horrific character of our times, and there are in fact many others who escaped the fate that ended his reign. The United States does not go to war over the misdeeds of every tin pot dictator in the world, even ones committing genocide and crimes against humanity.
Using history and to the best of my understanding of human nature, I don’t see any victory in Iraq, no matter how much I wish it so; I hope I am wrong. This is no fault of lack of effort or the abilities of our troops or military leadership, but it is entirely the fault of policy makers and those in congress whose job it is to debate such an issue that has grave consequences. In this respect, they have both failed the American people as well as the Iraqis.
Fleet, we are creating a straw man here or at the least getting off topic, as it is merely my suggestion to wait for a more credible assessment of the surge from people who are intimately involved with it. (as opposed to politicians with political aspirations) I will briefly respond and I suspect that there was an earlier thread to discuss this issue but it was debated before my arrival on this board.
It may be off topic but it's not straw man.
Facts are facts, and the fact is that there was talk, in Congress, of removing Saddam from power before Bush was President.
The Democrats have a vested interest in failure brought about by their narcissic lust for power. Without mincing words they are shameful, disgraceful, borderline, if not over the line, traitors and seditionists. Pelosi, Durbin, Murtha, Kerry, Gore, Reid, are all shameful, as well as the lemmings that support them.
The Democrats have a vested interest in failure brought about by their narcissic lust for power. Without mincing words they are shameful, disgraceful, borderline, if not over the line, traitors and seditionists. Pelosi, Durbin, Murtha, Kerry, Gore, Reid, are all shameful, as well as the lemmings that support them.
Since I consider myself neither Republican or Democrat, I feel as though I must say one quick thing.
Hearing a Right Winger bash Democrats as the above poster did, is kinda like a guy who is shooting up heroin - complaining about someone next to him who is smoking pot.... and then turning and yelling at that person "YOU DRUG ADDICT!!!" Wow. What planet of hypocrosy are you people living on???
You do provide some good entertainment sometimes, though. Thanks.
Narrsasistic (sic) lust for power. Ha ah. Yeah, like that is just Democrat thing.... ahhhhh. Bush and Cheney - just good guys, doing their thing. It's never been about power for them. They're just like Andy and Barney from Mayberry, just with a little more responsibility.
A Surge Of Success
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, August 15, 2007 4:20 PM PT
War In Iraq: The surge is working. That's not our opinion, but that of Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq. And he'll soon back it up by proposing removal of American troops from several areas there.
Related Topics: Iraq | General Politics
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bad news for those who've wanted to see the U.S. defeated in Iraq: It's not happening. In fact, according to both Petraeus and Pentagon officials, success in a number of areas of Iraq has been so great that the U.S. will soon be able to leave security duties to the Iraqis a major success on the Iraqi front of the war on terror.
Hillary Clinton (#1 contender for the Dem nomination)
August 21, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton told a veterans group yesterday that President Bush's troop surge is working -- but that it is still time to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq.
"It's working. We're just years too late in our tactics," she said, referring to the beefed-up U.S. troop presence battling insurgents in Iraq, including war-torn Anbar province. IRAQ SURGE WORKING, BUT TOO LATE: HILLARY CLINTON | By GEOFF EARLE | National News | US News | Current National News
Carl Levin (#1 man on the Defense committee)
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin says he saw “credible and positive results from the surge of troops in Iraq ordered by President George W. Bush but remains skeptical about whether military successes will lead to political resolutions in that war-torn country.
Levin: Troop surge has 'positive results' in Iraq (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070820/NEWS07/70820030 - broken link)
And you know what all 3 of these have in common? They all said the surge would not work.
Then you have John Warner speaking today. It seems the news coming out of Iraq is just as confusing as the situation on the ground... which obviously, seems to make sense.... and doesn't nessecarily give the average person in America much confidence that this mess is going any better... or if it is... will stay that way.
Warner: Bush should bring troops home
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 54 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - President Bush should start bringing home some troops by Christmas to show the Baghdad government that the U.S. commitment in Iraq is not open-ended, a prominent Republican senator said Thursday.
Putting aside ones political leanings and look at me with a straight face and say you believe and trust what this administration is telling you is truthful when in the past they have sold us these whoppers of pure unadulterated fantasy.
[i]And before you denounce me as some liberal heretic, you could not be further from the truth. I was a former life long registered republican and I didn’t vote democrat in 04 either, a lie is a lie, no matter what political party spews it.
You are either uninformed or being intellectually dishonest.
I supported President Clinton's unilateral action against Saddam Hussein in 1998.
I thought it was the right thing to do. Even though he did NOT have the United Nations support to do so.
President Clinton told all Americans that he was attacking Iraq's reconstituted "nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs" and doing so to protect Iraq's neighbors and Americans.
President Clinton bombed Iraq's "nuclear, chemical, and biological" programs for 4 days and he still stated he "couldn't get it all"!
Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance
December 16, 1998
Web posted at: 8:51 p.m. EST (0151 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.
Moderator cut: copyrights
President Clinton also stated that Saddam Hussein had the capabillity to rebuild his WMD programs in a "matter of months not years":
Quote:
Quote:
Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years.
So you believe that President Clinton "lied" about Saddam's WMDs? I don't. I think Clinton told the truth, because he based his statements on Intelligence.
Bush was sworn in on January 20, 2001. Democrats said Saddam had WMDs in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. After 9/11 the threat that Saddam Hussein posed had to be taken seriously.
In 2002 and 2003 it was reported that the NSA satellites had taken photos of Iraqi Convoys leaving suspected chemical facilities and going into 3 sites in Syria.
Saddam Hussein said those 20 planeloads contained “humanitarian” assistance, but he was under U.N. Sanctions?!
He said he didn’t have enough humanitarian supplies, which is what he used for the excuse to let his own people starve??!!
But he had enough to send 20 planeloads of “humanitarian aid” to Syria??!!
———————————————— ———————————————— ————————
And this was further validated by Nizar Nayuf (Nayyouf-Nayyuf). "A Syrian journalist who recently defected from Syria to Western Europe and is known for bravely challenging the Syrian regime,
said in a letter Monday, January 5, 2004, to Dutch newspaper “De Telegraaf,” that he knows the three sites where Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are kept.
Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, WMD in Syria (http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php - broken link)
———————————————— ———————————
In 2004 10 al-Qaeda terrorists were captured in Jordan with more than 20 tons of Chemical Weapons!
The reported targets were the Jordanian Prime Minister’s office and the headquarters of Jordanian Intelligence, and the U.S. Embassy.
It has been reported that up to 100,000 could have been killed in the Terrorist Bombing.
This is the kind of threat that Bush was talking about.
IN a live televised Jordanian interrogation those al-Qaeda terrorists admitted to receiving the 20 tons of WMDs from those three Syrian Sites reported by General Sada and seen by NSA satellite photos.The al-Qaeda terrorists also received training at those Syrian Sites.
———————————————— ———————————————— —-
Not only did Saddam Hussein have a 12 year history of not complying to his own Cease Fire Agreement he shot down a U.S. Spy Plane 1 month before 9/11 in August of 2001!
Tariq Aziz even bragged that they were able to upgrade their anti-aircraft technology with brand new technology illegally purchased during the U.N. Sanctions.
An Iraqi Nuclear Scientist, Dr Mahdi Obeidi, was hiding the key Nuclear Research and Nuclear Centrifuges needed to restart Saddam's Nuclear Weapons Program. Saddam reported these Nuclear documents, and key nuclear centrifuge parts as "Destroyed" in 1995!
Dr Obeidi testified that he was ordered to hide the nuclear documents, blueprints, and centrifuge an be prepared to restart Iraq's Nuclear Weapons Program on Saddam's order.
The experts argued that Saddam Hussein had ASPIRATIONS of reconstituting his Nuclear Weapons Program. These Nuclear Documents and key Nuclear Centrifuge parts were declared DESTROYED by Saddam. They were NOT.
I don't like Bush. I think he is an idiot. I believe the post-Saddam era was not planned well.
I will be happy when Bush is gone, but I don't believe either President Clinton or Bush "lied" about the threat from Saddam Hussein his relationship with al-Qaeda.
The only reason we have a chance of winning in Iraq is only due to the men serving in the U.S. Military and being able to adjust in very very difficult situations.
I would be supporting Al Gore if he had made the same decision based on the information and intelligence at that time.
Removing Saddam was the right thing to do, but Bush has definitely cost American and Iraqi lives in the way he let prick Rumsfeld micro-manage the war and waited way too long to replace Rumsfeld. Good riddance to him, too.
It may be off topic but it's not straw man.
Facts are facts, and the fact is that there was talk, in Congress, of removing Saddam from power before Bush was President.
Not to mention the Clinton Administratin revealed intelligence that stated an alliance between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in 1998, 1999, and 2000.
That fact alone could not be ignored after 9/11.
In 1998 President Clinton signed the "Iraqi Liberation Act", which was approved by a majority vote of Democrats and Republicans.
The "1998 Iraqi Liberation Act" made it OFFICAL United States Policy to approve "REGIME CHANGE" for Iraq.
If President Clinton hadn't been distracted by a political witch hunt he would have removed Saddam Hussein himself.
He wasn't even succesful at getting Weaposn Inspectors back into the country after pulling them out in 1998.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A Surge Of Success
