jjacobs43

Those weapons that were supposedly 'unaccounted for' were more than a decade old and had a shelf life of about 3 years. So, even if they did exist (which has never been proven) they were harmless. I'm not sure what this ballistic missile program is that you say Scott was wrong about. As far as I know, no weapons have been found and a very large number of people that were involved with intelligence gathering are saying that they never believed there were any weapons to be worried about.

Well I'm glad you were sold on the humanitarian aspects because that's all that's left to the argument. From a humanitarian aspect, I would think there were much more effective things we could have done with the resources.

The Neocons statement of principles...

http://www.newamericancentury.org/st...principles.htm

Note: The letter dated in 1997 seems to have 'lost' any references to preemption that where there before.


The intelligence community as a whole did not believe that Iraq was a threat. So I don't see it as incorrect intelligence. If you want to cherry pick the intelligence you can form any conclusions you want. That's what they did to sell the war.

That Uranium intelligence fiasco is well documented. Even Condolezza Rice went on National TV and made excuses for how that bogus information ended up in the state of the union. Her excuse: Tenet had asked for it to be remove from an earlier speech and it was. But, 6 weeks later, it was forgotten that Tenet had asked for it to be removed and it ended up in the speech.

Sounds like you're a Neocon too.


There's a reason for 'checks and balances'. It is a VERY bad thing when a small group is able to trick the people into getting their way. What they've done has very serious consequences for years to come. Shouldn't there have been a debate on it? (I already know your answer to this).

I just don't think this is the same thing. To lie to the nation like that in the state of the union address is crossing the line of what's normal politics and what is illegal.

Confed999

Then all Saddam had to do was show the disposal site, that doesn't sound so difficult to me. No proof of disposal means he still had them, by the terms of the cease-fire.
So, the one detonated near American troops sending them to hospital was harmless? Degraded maybe, but not harmless. Intact, and well maintained, chemical deploying bombs were also found.
Al Samoud 2... The nifty thing about this rocket is that it was an anti-aircraft missile with the warhead and guidance removed. As such it's payload was useless for anything other than... chem/bio weapons. It could be mated, by design, to the Hussein rocket giving it enough range to hit anywhere in Israel.
If you say so, but France and Russia said they had 'em, and they were in bed with Saddam.
Really? What could have been done to save as many thousands of lives, or to give as many millions a chance to be free?
Interesting... Kerry shares some of those principals, now that he's running for Prez, he never did before though, does that make him neo-con lite?
You mean, besides to his own people, his neighbors and through terrorism...
That was provided by foreign intel, who gave it to us, anybody know? Anyway, you said GWB lied, so you must have proof he knew the info was forged, when he made the speach, and that he purposely left it in for deception.
If wanting tyrants to be removed from power makes me a neo-con, then I will gladly be one. If wanting freedom for everyone makes me a neo-con, then I will gladly be one. If believing "all men are created equal" makes me a neo-con, then I will gladly be one. If viewing the evidence showing containment does not work makes me a neo-con, then I will gladly be one.
There was well over a decade of debate, with no other viable solution other than to let Iraqis die by the thousands, and to have their deaths blamed on us. The entire time allowing Saddam to create state terrorists, to support international terrorism, and to continue shooting at Americans and British. What part of the "checks and balances" were not followed? The Prez didn't have to sell the WMD argument to our government, there are very few, including all of the Dems, that didn't believe he had them. The WMD argument was for the UN, because it was their argument to begin with.
Exactly my point. Kerry sat in front of Congress, under oath, and admited to committing atrocities. So, by his own words he is either a war criminal or a liar, yet you forgive him because years later he says he didn't mean him, he meant others. Either way he was giving the enemy "aid and comfort", see article 3, section 3 of the Consitution for what should have been done.

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

jjacobs43

Bottom line is this: We did a pre-emptive invasion of a country under false information. If you are in control of the biggest superpower of the world, intelligence failures of this magnitude just can not happen. You can throw out all these little examples of a weapon found here and a weapon found there or something that was barried in somebody's back yard 10 years ago, but stockpiles were not found and the rest of the world knows this. This was a major **** up and the consequences are going to be severe.

Well, for one thing, we could have finished the job in Afghanistan. That country is slipping right back to the way it was because we just abandoned our mission there.

Of course I can't prove what Bush knew and didn't know. But, when there is a pattern of lieing and an obvious motivation behind the lieing I can come to some pretty solid conclusions. So, We can argue forever on it and I realize I'll never convince somebody like you, but I am pretty damn confident that we were intentionally lied to in order to sell the war to the world.


Sounds like you have the start to a good stump speech.


I forgive Kerry because a) Of what I know about war, he was probably right and b) because I was 2 years old when he said it and don't really give a crap about what happened during the Vietnam war. I am more worried about the mess we are stuck in right now.

Confed999

Saddam failed to adhere to the cease-fire, so the cease-fire was technically void, thus we continued a war that was allready happening. He fired on our aircraft in UN airspace, an act of war. He publicly called for, and paid money to fund, terrorism against Israel, the US and the UK. He showed this on his public TV, on a weekly basis for 8 years or so. Only one stand, WMD, has turned out to be false, the terrorism and humanitarian reasons were valid, they were 2/3s correct, and they were correct about what I care about. If WMD is all that matters to someone, then you are right, otherwise you're wrong. Bottom line is: Saddam had the power to stop this, just as his power started it. All that was required was compliance. I actually find it funny that so many blame GB for SH's non-compliance. Personally I'm mad at Bush 1 and Clinton, for letting this go on for so long...

"in a world where oppression and violence are very real, liberation is still a moral goal, and freedom and security still need defenders."
-President George W. Bush
From whom? Remember, nearly every country's intel told us they had WMD, most warned they would use them too.
I agree Afghanistan should have been further along, a decade to finish would be alot of dead Iraqis though. The mission in Afghanistan hasn't been abandoned, it would just be better if the focus were currently there. I don't know what that has to do with money though. In the end all we can really do is give the people living there the chance to be free, they are the ones that must take it.
So you think he may have committed political suicide lying about WMD? If they knew he didn't have WMD wouldn't they have taken "his" WMD with them?
No you won't, not without concrete evidence. I don't play "Right Wing Conspiracy", or "Left Wing Conspiracy", without real proof.
The hundreds of thousands exhumed from mass graves makes me pretty damn confident that the rest of the world only cares for themselves.
I hoped you would say something about that. What you don't realize is, I can't be a neo-con by the definition you provided. Neo-cons in that incarnation have their beliefs for America, mine are for humanity as a whole. I don't care where you're from, you're worth no less than anyone anywhere else, "all men are created equal".
I know you do, as you have through all of his flip-flopping, as you have for his statements that Iraq had WMD. That's politics...
"History is a vast early warning system." -Norman Cousins
And as such every crime against humanity matters to me, even ones committed in the distant past. Aren't liberals supposed to actually worry more about this "caring for people" stuff, than us black hearted conservatives?

jjacobs43

I'm going to drop the rest of this post as I can see there's really nothing else I can say. Someday, when Colin Powell has no ties to politics and is able to freely speak his mind you will find out that this is more than just a conspiracy theory. I think he's the one insider that people will believe when he confirms what many other former insiders are already saying.

As for my last quote, I know you're taking it out of context in order to throw it in my face but I think you knew what I really meant by that statement. And anyway, if you truly believe that quote by Norman Cousins and you truly do care about what happened in Vietnam, you'd be much more concerned about what's going on in Iraq right now.

Confed999

If he provides proof, I will believe him. I will seek the trial and punishment of all those involved, including him, but I will still believe liberating Iraq was the right thing to do. The truth is what matters to me, not guess work. If I worried about every conspiracy, there would be no time left in the day to post here. I need hard evidence before I convict anyone, "innocent until proven guilty".
No, I don't know what you meant by that statement, unless you meant you don't care what happened in Vietnam. I can only read what you type. It seems to me the only thing worth removing Saddam for, was your own skin, so not caring about Vietnam was no real streach of the imagination. My question was quite honest, a bit smart-a**ed but still honest, it was not "to throw it in [your] face".
What makes you think I'm not? Why else would I stand against all conspiracy stuff meant to politicize the war, and make the powers that be unwilling to fight it like a war. Vietnam was lost because of the unwillingness to fight a war like a war, due to politics.

I came to a realization sometime ago, and call me silly if you wish but, we are all cousins. It seems, whether you believe in creation or evolution, we came from a small enough group that by now we are all related, cousins or stronger. As such I am forced, not only to care, but to love them, for they are all my family. When I see places like Afghanistan and Iraq, places where the average age of the population is in the teens, I know something must be done as rapidly as possable, for my family is being killed. If I cannot save everyone, I will not give up, I will save all I can. I want nothing less than peace and love, but until those who seek only death and hate are gone, that is but a pipe dream.

mtnbiker

http://www.americanintelligence.us/m...ticle&sid=1968

If you are still using Joseph Wilson to validate your argument you need to update your information. Wilson has been totally discredited. It turns out HE was the one that was lying. British intelligence still stands by the "uranium purchase" information.

mtnbiker

jjacobs43, if this is true and you have read all these books, I would suggest you pick up General Tommy Franks new book. You won't like what it has to say as it will require you to relook at a number of things you believe to be true.

jjacobs43

Then why did Condoleeza Rice go on national tv and say it was an accident that the uranium purchase information was put in the State of the Union address?

Don't give me a link to some right wing prograganda site and tell me it shows that somebody has been discredited. Everybody who has spoken out against the Bush administration is discredited and every right wing web site and talk show host laps it up. George Tenet was not standing by the uranium claim either.

mtnbiker

Just because the article is posted on a "right wing propaganda site" doesn't mean it isn't true. It's not an article written by the site, it's an actual article. The article quotes the Washington Post, the 9/11 commission, etc. Joseph Wilson WAS DISCREDITED by all media and the Senate Intelligence Committe report around 2 months ago.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2103795/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jul9.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp

From the Washington Post

From the Senate panel
More from the Senate panel
From the Senate Intelligence Committe Reporthttp://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf

jjacobs43

All of that you are reading on sites like the National Review is an attempt to paint Joseph Wilson as a loser and an opportunist. Whichever one sticks to him the best. It's the same technique that is applied to everybody who says the wrong thing against the Bush administration.

I just read those articles and skimmed through the conlcusion in the intelligence report. From what I get out of it, there was no conlusive evidence one way or the other. To me, that would indicate that it is something you would not include in a state of the union address. So, yes, Bush left himself some wiggle room by citing the British intelligence instead of our own but to me that is a deliberate attempt at misleading the American public. If our own intelligence doesn't have a definitive opinion on the matter, then it shouldn't be thrown out as fact.

I go back to my original question to you: Why did Condoleeza Rice make excuses about it being an accident that it was left in? In a speech 6 weeks earlier, it was removed at the request of George Tenet. They forgot to remove it for the State of the Union? Come on!

I do not see any motives for Wilson to lie (at the time of his statements). I do see motives for the Bush administration to lie. And finally, after the fact, I see no evidence out there that Iraq had active nuclear weapons programs. Given that, I have no reason to doubt Wilson's statements.

Confed999

mtnbiker,
Thanks for the links. I was pretty sure it was UK intel, and that they stood by it, but I didn't feel like searching it out again.
Intelligence isn't definitive, it isn't facts, it's an educated guess.

jjacobs43

It's not up to the President and his aids to make that educated guess. They are supposed to report what the real intelligence gatherers are telling them. These people weren't concluding anything. So, as for what Bush & Co. should be basing decisions on, this intelligence did not exist.

That link reminded me of Bush's actual words. He definately left wiggle room for himself by basing it on the British's intelligence. But that just shows me even more that he was intentionally misleading us (and Rice's subsequent comments confirm it).

Confed999

I don't understand... The UK says according to their intel Iraq was trying to buy uranium, so it appears the intel did exist. Intel isn't conclusive, if it were it would be called fact.
See what I mean about politics. There is definately a question about this intel, it could easily be true or false, but you're still willing to damn Bush without conclusive evidence. A bi-partisan senate commission doesn't feel the same way you do, and that means a little more, at least to me, than the conspiracy.