Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 85
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    As I noted before most of those quotes from the Clinton did not warrant an invasion as Clinton saw it. Plus, as far as Intel committee is concerned should they not trust Bush?

    Again, most of those did not feel his was an IMEDDIATE threat.
    But the point is the intel was validated at the time from multiple sources...again plan of action based on intel may very, but that is a matter of judgement........totally different than the topic of this thread that Bush lied.


    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Why has no one been fired for the mistakes in the Intel?
    I agree. There is no doubt that there was faulty info which played a huge role in the chain of events. I think it is a very valid question to ask why no one was held responsible and fired. I would also ad to that train of thought and ask who in any of half the world's intel agencies were fired because of misleading information that they presented as well?
  2. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    You didn't know the oversight committee got the same briefings?

    This is a fact. I'm sorry if it's inconvenient.
    You mention briefings but not intel, briefings being a summary of intel that congress does not get to see.
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    You mention briefings but not intel, briefings being a summary of intel that congress does not get to see.
    Again, congress as a whole and Intel Committee to the best of my understanding from reading, listening to interviews, etc.... are two different topics concerning this point. The Intel Committee does have access to the raw data and to CIA analysts to do their own research to substantiate or find fault with intel briefings.
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I agree. There is no doubt that there was faulty info which played a huge role in the chain of events. I think it is a very valid question to ask why no one was held responsible and fired. I would also ad to that train of thought and ask who in any of half the world's intel agencies were fired because of misleading information that they presented as well?
    I also agree, but would additionally point out the obvious - Saddam's police state was as difficult to penetrate with human intelligence as all other police states have proven to be. Witness the collossal error of the CIA predicting the eternal existence of the Soviet Union right up until the Berlin Wall fell.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  5. #65  
    Again, congress as a whole and Intel Committee to the best of my understanding from reading, listening to interviews, etc.... are two different topics concerning this point. The Intel Committee does have access to the raw data and to CIA analysts to do their own research to substantiate or find fault with intel briefings.
    Precisely. I've been very careful to say "oversight committee" not "congress".

    And John Kerry, who voted for the war and now claims the President mislead the country, is and was on that committee.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by treosixoo
    One thing about Hobbes is that you 'Keep it Real!' You show the facts for what they are (on both sides). Keep it Real and I'll keep checking for your post.
    BTW.. ...thanks for the moral support. Sometimes I get kind of lonely with my perspectives of the world.
  7. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #67  
    I would like you 2 to consider this.

    OCTOBER 8, 1997 – IAEA SAYS IRAQ FREE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

    FEBRUARY 23 & 24, 2001 – COLIN POWELL SAYS IRAQ IS CONTAINED: "I think we ought to declare [the containment policy] a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box." He added Saddam "is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors" and that "he threatens not the United States."

    SEPTEMBER 16, 2001 – CHENEY ACKNOWLEDGES IRAQ IS CONTAINED Vice President **** Cheney said that "Saddam Hussein is bottled up" – a confirmation of the intelligence he had received.

    SEPTEMBER 2001 – WHITE HOUSE CREATES OFFICE TO CIRCUMVENT INTEL AGENCIES: The Pentagon creates the Office of Special Plans "in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true-that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons that threatened the region and, potentially, the United States…The rising influence of the Office of Special Plans was accompanied by a decline in the influence of the C.I.A. and the D.I.A. bringing about a crucial change of direction in the American intelligence community." The office, hand-picked by the Administration, specifically "cherry-picked intelligence that supported its pre-existing position and ignoring all the rest" while officials deliberately "bypassed the government's customary procedures for vetting intelligence."

    FEBRUARY 6, 2002 – CIA SAYS IRAQ HAS NOT PROVIDED WMD TO TERRORISTS: "The Central Intelligence Agency has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is also convinced that President Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda or related terrorist groups, according to several American intelligence officials."

    FEBRUARY 14, 2003 – UN WARNS WHITE HOUSE THAT NO WMD HAVE BEEN FOUND: "In their third progress report since U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 was passed in November, inspectors told the council they had not found any weapons of mass destruction." Weapons inspector Hans Blix told the U.N. Security Council they had been unable to find any WMD in Iraq and that more time was needed for inspections.

    FEBRUARY 15, 2003 – IAEA WARNS WHITE HOUSE NO NUCLEAR EVIDENCE: The head of the IAEA told the U.N. in February that "We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq." The IAEA examined "2,000 pages of documents seized Jan. 16 from an Iraqi scientist's home -- evidence, the Americans said, that the Iraqi regime was hiding government documents in private homes. The documents, including some marked classified, appear to be the scientist's personal files." However, "the documents, which contained information about the use of laser technology to enrich uranium, refer to activities and sites known to the IAEA and do not change the agency's conclusions about Iraq's laser enrichment program."


    http://www.americanprogress.org/AccountTempFiles/cf/{E9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03}/intel.doc - Full List
  8. #68  
    I'm mobile so a detailed response isn't possible tonight. My initial thoughts are that I am unconvinced (big surprise, I know). The first couple reference a conventional threat, which no one thought Iraq was. Also, no one thought that Iraq had a current nuclear program. That had been destroyed by the first Gulf War. The worry was that he'd try to restart it after inspections stopped.

    Regarding the OSP - if the intel the oversight committee got from CIA showed no evidence of a link and was negative towards the Bush case (which was supposedly the rationale for creating the OSP) did the committee members not have a duty to speak out at the time?
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  9. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    I would like you 2 to consider this.

    FEBRUARY 14, 2003 – UN WARNS WHITE HOUSE THAT NO WMD HAVE BEEN FOUND: "In their third progress report since U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 was passed in November, inspectors told the council they had not found any weapons of mass destruction." Weapons inspector Hans Blix told the U.N. Security Council they had been unable to find any WMD in Iraq and that more time was needed for inspections.
    I am heading to bed, but I will answer ones that I have already answered before, so it is just a matter of copy and pasting the same answer from when the same objections come of from the far left every 2 months or so........

    You will notice by fully examining the last round of inspections that Saddam refused to answer the 35 weapons questions or allow confirmation of his nuke, chem, bio capabilities and supplies. Please notice that the last were after your report listed above.

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/tc...5&postcount=49

    I agree there were major intel issues. I do question the timing of when to do what, as I addressed above. But Saddam did not take advantage of this last chance to declare a full and accurate accounting of his WMD programs, either future, current at the time, or past.....which could have stalled the US' claim to go to war against Iraq....especially with the votes they were buying with the Oil for Food.

    Here is an example of what I was talking about:

    November 8, 2002: Resolution 1441
    CNN. UNITED NATIONS -- The United Nations Security Council on Friday approved a resolution that demands unfettered access for U.N. inspectors to search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

    The vote is in line with U.S. efforts to win international backing for stripping Saddam Hussein of such weapons.

    The resolution passed unanimously, after U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan joined the assembled delegates in the Security Council chamber.

    "How this crisis is resolved will affect greatly the course of peace and security in the region and the world," Annan said after the vote. "I commend the council for acting today with purpose and resolve."

    Iraq reportedly was reviewing the document. "Iraq will certainly study the resolution and decide whether we can accept it or not," Iraqi Ambassador to the U.N. Mohammed Al-Douri told The Associated Press.

    --------------

    Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix wasted no time Friday in announcing his intention to begin work in Iraq. "We are planning to go to Baghdad on Monday the 18th of this month, so it will be within seven to 10 days that we have planned," he told reporters.

    http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/iraq.resolution/
    December 8, 2002: Iraq must provide a "currently accurate, full, and complete declaration" of any weapons of mass destruction program. They actually supplied it a day early, which gives the distinct impression that they were confident it was complete and accurate since they did not use the last day to review and finish the report that needed to be fully comprehensive.

    December 19, 2002
    USA TODAY. UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Top U.N. weapons inspectors reported Thursday that Iraq's weapons declaration has gaps and inconsistencies and the U.S. ambassador immediately declared Iraq in "material breach" of U.N. resolutions.

    ------------

    Negroponte spoke after chief weapons inspector Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, provided the Security Council with initial assessments of the 12,000-page declaration. "We are consistent in the view that there has been relatively little given in the declaration by way of evidence concerning the programs of weapons of mass destruction," Blix told reporters after the briefing.

    Negroponte said Iraq's "practice of omissions, evasions and untruths" was cause for a new "material breach" of its disarmament obligations — diplomatic language that could throw the United States into a war with Iraq.

    -----------------

    Blix noted inconsistencies in Iraq's biological declaration, noting that the latest report did not include a table that had been provided in 1999 on Baghdad's purchase of material that it used to grow biological warfare agents including anthrax.

    This omission "needs to be explained," Blix told the council, according to his briefing notes.

    Also, he said Iraq was using chemical equipment destroyed by inspectors before they left in December 1998 and was developing a missile known as the Al Samoud with a range, in 13 flight tests, that exceeded the range permitted under U.N. resolutions.

    "An opportunity was missed in the declaration to give a lot of evidence," Blix said. "They can still provide it orally but it would have been better if it was in the declaration."

    ElBaradei noted that the Iraqis have been opening doors for inspectors on the ground but said: "We have not gotten what we need in terms of additional evidence."

    ----------------

    In preparing its declaration, Iraq had a list of outstanding questions prepared by the former U.N. inspection agency and by an international panel of experts. Inspectors left Baghdad in December 1998 and Iraq barred them from returning until last month.

    The unanswered questions included: How much anthrax did Iraq actually produce, and was it all destroyed as Baghdad claims? Where are 550 artillery shells that it filled with mustard gas? Why were no remnants found of warheads for 50 long-range missiles that Iraq said it destroyed? What happened to all the deadly VX nerve agent that Iraq produced.

    The report by former chief inspector Richard Butler listed biological agents Iraq produced including deadly botullinum toxin, anthrax and ricin; gangrene gas, which rots flesh; and aflatoxin, which causes liver cancer. Baghdad also said it did research on rotavirus, which causes diarrhea; and hemorrhage conjunctivitis virus, which affects the eyes.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...aqreport_x.htm
    Friday, 10 January 2003 Blix Briefing Notes To UN Security Council
    I will also note that Iraq, in the Declaration, has declared the import of missile engines and raw material for the production of solid missile fuel. This import has taken place in violation of the relevant resolutions regulating import and export to Iraq. Inspections have confirmed the presence of a relatively large number of missile engines, some imported as late as 2002. We have yet to determine the significance of these illegal imports relating to the specific WMD-mandate of UNMOVIC.

    Another outstanding issue regards the chemical agent VX. We have found no additional information in the Declaration that would help to resolve this issue. Instead, it contains information that is contradicted by documents previously found by UNSCOM. Iraq will have to further clarify the matter.
    --------------

    As I reported to you on 19 December, UNMOVIC asked Iraq, on the basis of paragraph 7 of resolution 1441 (2002), to provide the names of all personnel currently or formerly associated with some aspects of Iraq's programme of weapons of mass destruction.

    A list was submitted to us before the end of last year as requested. It consisted of 117 persons for the chemical sector, 120 for the biological sector and 156 persons for the missile sector. This is an inadequate response. The lists do not even comprise all those who have been previously listed in Iraq's Full, Final and Complete Declarations, besides the numerous Iraqi personnel that are known from UNSCOM interviews and found in Iraqi documents, to have participated in past weapons programmes.

    We do not feel that the Iraqi side has made a serious effort to respond to the request we made.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0301/S00040.htm
    February 24, 2003
    Associated Press. Top U.N. inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei say Iraq still isn't fully cooperating or providing evidence to answer outstanding questions about its nuclear, chemical, biological and long-range missile programs.

    To demonstrate that Iraq is cooperating, Saddam must not only show that it is doing more to answer those questions. He must also comply with Blix's order to begin destroying all Iraq's Al Samoud 2 missiles and the engines and components for them by Saturday.

    -----------

    Blix, meanwhile, will meet Monday and Tuesday with his College of Commissioners, an advisory body, to go over the report due Saturday. Blix will present the commissioners with a list of more than 35 outstanding questions about Iraq's weapons programs.

    http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/47899.html
    July 06, 2003 Blix states in several interviews that Iraq still has not answered the answers so we could have confirmed or denied Saddams claims and/or lies.

    August 1, 2003
    President George W. Bush, under siege for "misleading" the country into war against Iraq, received some help from an unusual source -- former President Bill Clinton.

    "When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for . . . it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks . . . " said Clinton recently on "Larry King Live." Also, Clinton said he never found out whether a U.S.-British bombing campaign he ordered in 1998 ended Saddam's stockpiles of or his capability of producing chemical and biological weapons. "We might have gotten it all, we might have gotten half of it, we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know," said Clinton.
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=9191
  10. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    This report was in 1998. Even Clinton's intel after this date led them to question Saddams current status of nuke capabilities by the time he left office and after at least two attempts thwarted by Isreal and then by us, they were always suspect that he was going to try again. Here is a report a year after the one you quoted (just one of many others that can easily Googled for 1998-2000):

    TUESDAY, MAY 4, 1999
    Among other things, the show made the point that with UNSCOM/IAEA gone from Iraq--it has been over 4 1/2 months--the Iraqis are probably out shopping for proscribed weapons, including fissile material for a bomb. As an Iraqi defector, Dr. Khidir Hamza, who had been director of Iraq's nuclear weaponization program, explained, if Baghdad succeeded in acquiring the fissile material, it could produce a bomb within two to six months, which could be delivered by missile.

    Indeed, two very knowledgeable officials told "Iraq News" that they were quite concerned about Iraqi efforts to acquire fissile material. One even said that intelligence information exists that the Iraqis are trying to do just that.

    Also, Baghdad might be able to make significant progress in its missile program through illicit purchases, as the Iraqis have done such extensive testing that they know exactly what components they need.
    http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1999/05/990504_in.htm
    Or when reports like this start to filter in, one cannot help but to start to wonder:

    The New Yorker

    December 13, 1999

    Ever since the United Nations weapons inspectors were shut out of Iraq, a year ago, the world has been left to wonder what Saddam Hussein is up to. Well, now it can be told: he has been secretly trying to transform his desert dictatorship into a world-class center for the treatment of kidney stones.

    Or so it would seem, to judge from his latest purchases on the international medical-equipment market. Although Iraq remains under a strict United Nations embargo, the embargo does not cover medical supplies. Last year, the Iraqi government ordered half a dozen lithotripters, which are state-of-the-art machines for getting rid of kidney stones. (The word "lithotripter" comes from the Greek for "stone breaker.") A lithotripter uses a shock wave to pulverize these painful objects without surgery. Machines like the ones Iraq bought require a high-precision electronic switch that triggers a powerful burst of electricity. In addition to the lithotripters, Iraq wanted to buy a hundred and twenty extra switches. That is at least a hundred more than the machines would ever need.

    Iraq's strange hankering for this particular "spare part" becomes less mysterious when one reflects that the switch in question has another use: it can trigger an atomic bomb. According to a knowledgeable U.N. inspector, each bomb of the type that Iraq is trying to build requires thirty-two switches. Thus, a hundred of them would outfit three bombs. It is hardly a coincidence that, as the former U.N. inspector Scott Ritter testified at a Senate hearing last year, the inspectors had "intelligence information which indicates that components necessary for three nuclear weapons exist" in Iraq. Saddam Hussein has been shopping for what he needs to make sure they work.

    http://www.wisconsinproject.org/pubs...hotripter.html
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 12/10/2005 at 09:46 AM.
  11. #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    I would like you 2 to consider this.

    SEPTEMBER 16, 2001 – CHENEY ACKNOWLEDGES IRAQ IS CONTAINED Vice President **** Cheney said that "Saddam Hussein is bottled up" – a confirmation of the intelligence he had received.
    Out of context. This interview was under a week, just days, after 9/11. Here is the whole section of that part of the interview:

    MR. RUSSERT: Even if we take out Osama bin Laden, that will not stop terrorism.

    VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. No. He's the target at the moment. But I don't want to convey the impression that somehow, you know, if we had his head on a platter today, that that would solve the problem. It won't. You've got this organization, as I say, called al-Qaida. It's--somebody described it the other day as--it's like an Internet chat room, that people who come and participate in it, for one reason or another, engage in terrorism, have sometimes different motives and ideologies, but the tactics they use, the way they operate, their targets, that will continue until we go out, basically, and make the world unsafe for terrorists. And that's a key part of the strategy, in terms of working aggressively with those nations that have previously provided support and sustenance and sanctuary, to see to it that they no longer do that.

    MR. RUSSERT: You wouldn't mind having his head on a platter.

    VICE PRES. CHENEY: I would take it today.

    MR. RUSSERT: Saddam Hussein, your old friend, his government had this to say: "The American cowboy is rearing the fruits of crime against humanity." If we determine that Saddam Hussein is also harboring terrorists, and there's a track record there, would we have any reluctance of going after Saddam Hussein?

    VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.

    MR. RUSSERT: Do we have evidence that he's harboring terrorists?

    VICE PRES. CHENEY: There is--in the past, there have been some activities related to terrorism by Saddam Hussein. But at this stage, you know, the focus is over here on al-Qaida and the most recent events in New York. Saddam Hussein's bottled up, at this point, but clearly, we continue to have a fairly tough policy where the Iraqis are concerned.
    This quote is more prioritizing the needs of the US focus 4 days after 9/11, not our comprehensize analys of Iraq and Saddam. He also acknowledges there are challenges with Saddam that we are still going to have to address.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 12/16/2005 at 08:21 AM.
  12. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    I would like you 2 to consider this.

    FEBRUARY 6, 2002 – CIA SAYS IRAQ HAS NOT PROVIDED WMD TO TERRORISTS: "The Central Intelligence Agency has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is also convinced that President Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda or related terrorist groups, according to several American intelligence officials."
    Again just that paragraph alone is out of context. This is dealing with the investigation of whether Saddam was involved with AQ in prep for 9/11. You also failed to quote other vital parts in the same article:

    American officials say Iraqi intelligence now focuses most of its resources on finding ways to evade trade and economic sanctions that were imposed on Iraq after President Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990.

    Instead, American intelligence officials say their greatest concern is Iraq's continuing development of chemical and biological weapons, covert programs that have resumed since United Nations weapons inspectors left in 1998.

    Mr. Hussein apparently feels that such weapons will help his government deter any military attack by the United States and its allies.

    A C.I.A. report released last week noted that Iraq is probably continuing low-level nuclear weapons research as well, and that its inability to obtain enough fissile material is the biggest obstacle to becoming a nuclear power.

    The major threat to the United States from Iraqi efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction would come instead from Baghdad's parallel efforts to develop long-range missiles, which could be tipped with chemical or biological warheads, the C.I.A. believes.
    It then goes on about the State of the Union address the week before where President Bush described Iraq as part of an "axis of evil,".
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 12/10/2005 at 07:37 PM.
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    I would like you 2 to consider this.

    FEBRUARY 15, 2003 – IAEA WARNS WHITE HOUSE NO NUCLEAR EVIDENCE: The head of the IAEA told the U.N. in February that "We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq." The IAEA examined "2,000 pages of documents seized Jan. 16 from an Iraqi scientist's home -- evidence, the Americans said, that the Iraqi regime was hiding government documents in private homes. The documents, including some marked classified, appear to be the scientist's personal files." However, "the documents, which contained information about the use of laser technology to enrich uranium, refer to activities and sites known to the IAEA and do not change the agency's conclusions about Iraq's laser enrichment program."
    No link to confirm, but if my memory serves me correctly this is just a single document. It was also called into question about whether it was comprehensive or not. The fact was that at this time Saddam was still actively defying UN inspectors confirmation that his nuke program had not be restarted or even totally scrapped to begin with. The inspectors were only left with search private residences for evidence since Saddam was still defying them under the conditions that he was suppose to fully cooperative.

    Again......There was confirmation from over 10 nation's intelligence agencies and nation's leaders AND from the UN intel that Saddam had WMDs...including England, Russia, Iran, Isreal, and France!

    What makes this hard is that we couldn't believe the lies Saddam was telling about his lies. I mean he lied when he had WMDs and tried to hide them. Then he lied that he had WMDs when he didn't have them (though it was proven with docs recovered and by his own personal testimony that he had plans in the works to get them again). In a post 9/11 world, that is not very smart. It's like standing in a dark alley in NYC and you keep on telling a cop you have gun and you might use it while keeping you hands tucked in your jacket pocket point your finger at the cops. It's just stupid.

    There comes a point (aka after 12 years of deceptions and 18 UN resolutions) when you have to call a bluff, when you have to act on the lies of the leader of a proven hostile country.

    The nature of intelligence is gathering all the facts and making a decision of the possibilities of the outcome of that information. It is extremely rare to have a smoking gun in hand whenever making a decision (cuba missile crisis being the ONLY one in modern warfare history I can recall as the exeception to this rule, besides waiting to be attacked as proof such as Pearl Harbor and 9/11 which is least to say counter productive). Yes do a Google News search.......There was confirmation from over 10 nation's inteligence agencies AND from the UN intel that Saddam had WMDs and that is about as close as you can get to that though. Remember that that this was in a time were we were already attacked and know that it will happen again if given half a chance. Given the nature of Saddams continual deceptions he recently admitted to on 7/25/2004 where he purposely tried to give the impression he had WMD until he could finalize his plans and bribes with the Oil for Food scandal to get WMDs again....and the fact that inspections were not working because Saddam admitted to trying to deceive them with a vengance so that we did NOT know he did not have them and more importantly so that Iran did not find out he did not have any....this all has to be considered when analyizing the risk to national security of another homeland attack with either a bio or nuke strike on US soil by waiting until it happend as proof to go after Saddam who was trying his hardest to make it look like he was in a position to do it?

    And again, as quoted 4 posts above.....Clinton was also an important part in the Bush's decision as he had intel from his adminstration that Saddam had possible nuke and unaccounted bio WMDs and confirmed that to Bush.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 12/10/2005 at 07:34 PM.
  14. #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    I would like you 2 to consider this.
    NRG....as you requested, I hope I did okay in my answers in considering your points that you referenced and how they were related to the situation at the time that they happened.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 12/10/2005 at 07:34 PM.
  15. #75  
    The inconsistency in this administration is the focus on Iraq as a real threat requiring war to subdue, when during the same time North Korea presented an equal if not greater threat.

    You don't hear of overthrowing North Korea. And what will we do when Iran gets nuclear weapons?

    Rather than looking backwards and arguing about the past, why not look forward and discuss the very real issue of nuclear proliferation?
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by DHAnderson
    The inconsistency in this administration is the focus on Iraq as a real threat requiring war to subdue, when during the same time North Korea presented an equal if not greater threat.

    You don't hear of overthrowing North Korea. And what will we do when Iran gets nuclear weapons?
    Are you suggesting we should have invaded North Korea? War is an uncertain business but I'll guarantee you one thing - invading North Korea would have cost more than 2100 lives. Why should taking on Iraq not allow us to pursue other means of containing North Korea? Libya had a well advanced nuclear program which has been halted. We have the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time.

    Does North Korea represent a threat that we must deal with? Obviously. As does Iran. As did Iraq. The difference is 1) the overthrow and replacement of Hussein was achievable at a relatively low cost 2) replacing Hussein with a democratically elected government let us make a wider point to the Muslim world about freedom and their possible brighter future.
    Rather than looking backwards and arguing about the past, why not look forward and discuss the very real issue of nuclear proliferation?
    I agree, but that would be a different thread then, wouldn't it?

    The backward-looking is being forced by the opponents to the war who wish to claim "Bush lied". Such idiocy can't be allowed to stand unchallenged.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  17. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by DHAnderson
    The inconsistency in this administration is the focus on Iraq as a real threat requiring war to subdue, when during the same time North Korea presented an equal if not greater threat.

    You don't hear of overthrowing North Korea. And what will we do when Iran gets nuclear weapons?
    As pointed out there is a big difference between the NK and Iraq. Mainly NK has been reported to have 1-8 nukes ready to launch right now that can reach any major city on our west coast. Iraq was only potential trying to get it. That is not comparing apples to oranges but rather raisins to watermelons. You have to handle each of those two situations totally different.

    As for as Iran. This is another old claim that seems to come up every 2 months or so (and usually from those among the far left trying to point out how dumb Bush was to after Iraq instead of the nuke threat of Iran)....so below are my answers for the other 5 times it has come up with the truth about the timelines of handling each of the situations as they presented themselves. As you can see Iran did not even pose itself as a nuke threat until AFTER Iraq was already set in motion. But I want to say that I do feel that they are currently one the biggest threats to us right now. That is why I dedicated a whole thread just to the threat ( http://discussion.treocentral.com/tc...ight=iraq+iran ).

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    It is easy to say that now. But what is often challenging to do is to look at the what we knew at the time the decisions were being made........and not with the knowledge we have now. IMHO, This is where a lot of your argument falls apart.

    I shared with you in one of the first posts the choices of those who we could have gone after at that time, and some thoughts on each.

    You have to look at what we knew at the time. Due to Saddams reluctance to confirm his claims that he no longer had the vast amounts of WMD material that Clinton says was still unaccounted for when he left office,
    Congress had already voted for going after Iraq on Friday, October 11, 2002 ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,65395,00.html ).
    Nov 8th 2002 the UN Security Council Approves Iraq Resolution ( http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cssn/cssn.../11/00035.html ).
    March 20th, 2003 US attacks Iraq ( http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...sprj.irq.main/ ).

    We did not even have confirmation about Iran's Nuke program until Dec. 2002 With the help of satellite photos of Natanz and Arak ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8472950/ ). So we did not even know for sure about their Nuke program until 2 months after Congress approves the Iraq Resolution and 1 month after the UN approves Resolution 1441.

    The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) team headed by chief Mohamed ElBaradei doesn't even inspect Natanz and Arak until Feb. 2003........5 months after Congress approves the Iraq Resolution.

    And it is not even until June 2003 that they file their report and July 2003 that Diplomats tell Reuters the IAEA has found traces of weapons-grade highly-enriched uranium (HEU) at Natanz....... 8 & 9 months after Congress approves the Iraq Resolution and a 2 & 3 monts AFTER the US Attacks Iraq.

    No matter what your personal political opinions are, you cannot muddle facts we know true today as if they were well known then when decisions had to be made.

    I would have supported going after Iran at the time as well, even though we didn't know about their nuke program at the time. But I have little doubt that we would be in the same boat as we are now in Iraq, but in a worse situation. Iran can only support the insurgence under the table with a low profile. Imagine what it would be like if they were free and open to oppose us in this situation? No matter if it was Iran or Iraq, both have to be dealt with. And since even after we had finish dealing with Iran, I doubt that we would still know for sure or not about Saddam's status with his WMDs that there is no doubt that he DID have. It also would have flipped the coin and offered many HUGE benefits for Iraq, just as Iraq's situation has offered benefits to Iran. In both cases, AQ would be supporting the insurgency. In both cases Syria, would be supporting the insurgency. In both cases, we would be fighting an uphill battle against resistant terrorist fearful of a Dem gov who are going to oppose us every minute that we fight to establish democracy in the mist of them.

    Again, you must look at the options available with the knowledge we had at the time:

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Again, yes there have been benefits for Iran. Which makes them even more of an enemy to be concerned about. But you are looking at the snapshot, not the whole picture.

    That Saddam has already testified that he had plans to get Nukes, including re-establishing the infrastructure of producing Nukes and the financing of the program, which apparently included in part the Oil for Food Scandal.

    That Iran had been hiding their Nuke program for around 20 years with lies concerning all sides of it during that time that were less sure at the time we went into Iraq of what Iran was possibly up to, beyond the normal rumors.

    As I stated in the Iran thread when this same point was brought up by you, that there is a lot consider:

    But I do agree with you that we would be hard pressed, though unwisely possible, to initiate military options against Iran while we are still tied to cleaning up the situation in Iraq. I personally feel that Iraq needed to be addressed, my big question is the timing concerning other threats at the time and now. I assume that you would agree that all cannot be taken care of at once. Then it comes down to what to do first.

    IRAN: As I mentioned in the first post, I personally think that the US has always been all too aware of the threat of Iran, which has lead to many of our decisions in dealing with both Iraq and Iran. I personally think that is one (among a mountain of others) consideration why during the first Gulf war, we did not go all the way to take out Bagdad, is that Iraq offers a political buffer between the US and Iran and helps to stop a full head on toe to toe situation.

    To tell you the truth Iran possibly scares me more than any other immediate threat for a couple reasons. NK obviously can hurl nukes our way, but I feel is unable to wage any other long term war because of their economy being so bad, food so scarce, and energy resources always low. But Iran I feel has the economy, political momentum, and the man power to wage a VERY serious war against the US. This would make the Iraq war look like game a Risk compared to it, if it came to feet on the ground.

    NKorea: The big difference between Iraq and NK is that NK already has up to 8 unconfirmed nukes with an unconfirmed delivery capability to launch a strike against the entire West Coast of the US with a push of a button. Iraq was claiming (or at least not allowing confirmation that they were not) to be really close to nuke capability and we still had a chance to act before they got it.

    Syria: I think this could have been a possibility, not because of their political, or economical, or military factors, but for making their county a safe haven for terrorist. I think it would have been a similar situation as in Iraq. A quick fall of the gov and a long haul effort to reform the gov while dealing with all the terrorist in the country and those who would come in to join the fight. It may be a target soon because of their continual support of terrorist while thumbing their nose at the rest of us.

    Pakistan: This again falls into a NK category as they also have nukes and have proved with 5 tests in 1998. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/ . Again a country that already has nukes is a whole different situation than one on verge of getting them, like Iran and Iraq.

    Lybia: After seeing that the US meant business with those playing games with WMDs, already gave theirs up and welcomed us in to make sure there they had it all. This is an example of what can happen when we stand up to threats and follow through on what we say we are going to do.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 12/16/2005 at 08:31 AM.
  18. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal on 12/10/2005
    NRG....as you requested, I hope I did okay in my answers in considering your points that you referenced and how they were related to the situation at the time that they happened.
    NRG...as you requested I spent some time researching each of the points you wanted me to. I am curious about your thoughts.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 12/17/2005 at 01:19 AM.
  19. #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG on 12/09/05
    I would like you 2 to consider this.
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal on 12/10/2005
    NRG....as you requested, I hope I did okay in my answers in considering your points that you referenced and how they were related to the situation at the time that they happened.
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal on 12/15/2005
    NRG...as you requested I spent some time researching each of the points you wanted me to. I am curious about your thoughts.
    NRG.....you wanted me to consider your list of points you brought up. I researched each one and replied to them above. I am still interested in your thoughts on my research and responses on the points that you apparently thought were proof that Bush lied.

    I addressed them in post numbers:

    69
    70
    71
    72
    73
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 12/29/2005 at 06:31 PM.
  20. #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG on 12/09/05
    I would like you 2 to consider this.
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal on 12/10/2005
    NRG....as you requested, I hope I did okay in my answers in considering your points that you referenced and how they were related to the situation at the time that they happened.
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal on 12/15/2005
    NRG...as you requested I spent some time researching each of the points you wanted me to. I am curious about your thoughts.
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal on 12/29/2005
    NRG.....you wanted me to consider your list of points you brought up. I researched each one and replied to them above. I am still interested in your thoughts on my research and responses on the points that you apparently thought were proof that Bush lied.

    I addressed them in post numbers:

    69
    70
    71
    72
    73
    NRG....It has been a month and 4 requests of asking your opinion of my responses to your request.

    I guess you either didn't agree to the point that you did not want to answer.......

    You agreed, so no need to answer.

    Didn't really care about my opinion that you asked for and I took the time to answer.

    Or.....I would rather just chalk it up to something as simply as a heavy vacation time of the year and didn't see any of the other 4 posts.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 01/09/2006 at 12:27 AM.
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions