Iraq General Thread

[Texsox]

100

[Rex Kickass]

Of course, I read that speech thinking he was baldly lying, that no matter what Iraq actually did, if the resolution passed, the war was inevitable, and it turned out that my judgement was better than that of Hillary et al. Which is the single greatest reason I will not vote for her in the primary; if my judgement of GWB was more accurate than hers, why should I trust her judgement with others?

 

Because what honorable people do who are in office is not hide the truth to get into war. Did our President hide the truth about the inevitability of this war? Absolutely. Did he lie about the reasons to get into this war? That's less clear, but IMHO, appears to be the case.

 

But in 2002, Senators weren't operating under the CW that the Bush administration is hiding its objectives, acting incompetently and recklessly, or that there was a nefarious purpose in the intent of the President. This drum beat to war concerned a lot of people, but I do think that most of mainstream America didn't feel that there was poor intent. And that it was the will of these elected officials' constituency to follow what is American tradition and give the President the necessary tools to responsibly execute foreign policy in the name of this country.

 

The lack of debate over why this was happening is what stunned me about 2002. The fact that the oversight of our Congress was so not there for six years stunned me. But given the climate of 2002, and given the Presidential assurances (which most members of Congress should but sadly can no longer take as honest) I wouldn't fault any senator or congressman for their vote.

 

However, playing it on both sides, like a lot of Senators have - to give themselves wiggle room - is awful. And not too forgivable. It's why Hillary's vote stunk, because she stayed hawkish til it wouldn't work for her future anymore.

[Balta1701]

Because what honorable people do who are in office is not hide the truth to get into war. Did our President hide the truth about the inevitability of this war? Absolutely. Did he lie about the reasons to get into this war? That's less clear, but IMHO, appears to be the case.

 

But in 2002, Senators weren't operating under the CW that the Bush administration is hiding its objectives, acting incompetently and recklessly, or that there was a nefarious purpose in the intent of the President. This drum beat to war concerned a lot of people, but I do think that most of mainstream America didn't feel that there was poor intent. And that it was the will of these elected officials' constituency to follow what is American tradition and give the President the necessary tools to responsibly execute foreign policy in the name of this country.

 

The lack of debate over why this was happening is what stunned me about 2002. The fact that the oversight of our Congress was so not there for six years stunned me. But given the climate of 2002, and given the Presidential assurances (which most members of Congress should but sadly can no longer take as honest) I wouldn't fault any senator or congressman for their vote.

 

However, playing it on both sides, like a lot of Senators have - to give themselves wiggle room - is awful. And not too forgivable. It's why Hillary's vote stunk, because she stayed hawkish til it wouldn't work for her future anymore.

Again I'll say this, the main thing I have against Kerry, Clinton, Edwards...all of them...is that whether or not their decisions were based on politics, polling, etc., the best defense they have offered for their vote is that they made the mistake of believing Mr. Bush.

 

So...given that by September of 02 I had personally decided that I couldn't believe a word coming out of Mr. Bush's mouth, and that every time he brought up things like the aluminum tubes, or the Ansar al Islam camp with Zarqawi that we were protecting with the no-fly zones, or the UAV's Iraq supposedly had (I think my personal favorite was the UAV's that were held together by duct tape that were somehow supposed to fly round the world) he was lying, why should I trust the judgement of someone who couldn't figure it out as well as me? How do I know they won't look into Putin's soul and proclaim him to not be a liar, when they looked into Mr. Bush's soul and decided to trust him?

 

I have to hold their vote against them...because I am not supposed to be better at their jobs than they are.

[Texsox]

I'm not as harsh on either Bush or those that believed him. While most (all?) the reasons to go to war have proven to be false or over stated, I'm not 100% convinced that people were out and out lying. I admire your decisiveness in knowing early on. I was on the fence and honestly would have voted to give the President what he asked for.

 

Through all this, and this is strange, I genuinely like President Bush. Given a chance between a weekend with Dubya and Slick Willy, I'd take Dubya in an instant.

[Rex Kickass]

Again I'll say this, the main thing I have against Kerry, Clinton, Edwards...all of them...is that whether or not their decisions were based on politics, polling, etc., the best defense they have offered for their vote is that they made the mistake of believing Mr. Bush.

 

So...given that by September of 02 I had personally decided that I couldn't believe a word coming out of Mr. Bush's mouth, and that every time he brought up things like the aluminum tubes, or the Ansar al Islam camp with Zarqawi that we were protecting with the no-fly zones, or the UAV's Iraq supposedly had (I think my personal favorite was the UAV's that were held together by duct tape that were somehow supposed to fly round the world) he was lying, why should I trust the judgement of someone who couldn't figure it out as well as me? How do I know they won't look into Putin's soul and proclaim him to not be a liar, when they looked into Mr. Bush's soul and decided to trust him?

 

I have to hold their vote against them...because I am not supposed to be better at their jobs than they are.

 

The aluminum tube myth wasn't debunked by the IAEA until January 03. The first time Zarqawi was referenced by the President was in October of 2002. As for the other stuff, Senator Nelson of Florida in 2004 says it best - as quoted in the Congressional Record.

 

I want to take this occasion to inform the Senate of specific

information that I was given, which turns out not to be true. I was one

of 77 Senators who voted for the resolution in October of 2002 to

authorize the expenditure of funds for the President to engage in an

attack on Iraq. I voted for it. I want to tell you some specific

information that I received that had a great deal of bearing on my

conclusion to vote for that resolution. There were other factors, but

this information was very convincing to me that there was an imminent

peril to the interests of the United States.

I, along with nearly every Senator in this Chamber, in that secure

room of this Capitol complex, was not only told there were weapons of

mass destruction--specifically chemical and biological--but I was

looked at straight in the face and told that Saddam Hussein had the

means of delivering those biological and chemical weapons of mass

destruction by unmanned drones, called UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles.

Further, I was looked at straight in the face and told that UAVs could

be launched from ships off the Atlantic coast to attack eastern

seaboard cities of the United States.

Is it any wonder that I concluded there was an imminent peril to the

United States? The first public disclosure of that information occurred

perhaps a couple of weeks later, when the information was told to us.

It was prior to the vote on the resolution and it was in a highly

classified setting in a secure room. But the first public disclosure of

that information was when the President addressed the Nation on TV. He

said that Saddam Hussein possessed UAVs.

Later, the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, in his presentation to

the United Nations, in a very dramatic and effective presentation,

expanded that and suggested the possibility that UAVs could be launched

against the homeland, having been transported out of Iraq. The

information was made public, but it was made public after we had

already voted on the resolution, and at the time there was nothing to

contradict that.

 

If you're being told this in a secure intelligence briefing, and you are John Q Senator - why would you not believe it? It's not coming from the President's speech, it's coming from a secured intelligence briefing.

[kapkomet]

The aluminum tube myth wasn't debunked by the IAEA until January 03. The first time Zarqawi was referenced by the President was in October of 2002. As for the other stuff, Senator Nelson of Florida in 2004 says it best - as quoted in the Congressional Record.

If you're being told this in a secure intelligence briefing, and you are John Q Senator - why would you not believe it? It's not coming from the President's speech, it's coming from a secured intelligence briefing.

If you are being told this in a secure intelligence briefing, and you are George W. Bush - why would you not believe it?

 

So, again, the data/intelligence all pointed to these issues. Everyone was being fed the same lines of what turned out to be bulls***. Now, having said that, at one time, Saddam had this technology, or the means to make it. That's always conveniently never brought up.

 

Now, next, re: my first sentance, you're going to tell me that it was GWB (or his administration) that was forcing people to lie about this stuff. I absolutely don't think that's true. The intelligence supported it. Period. Once we got in there, our intelligence was proven to be junk, although I still say most of this is sitting in Syria today.

 

[GoSox05]

Does anyone here think that had Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that the war at this point would be considered to be more successful?

 

One more question. Does anyone here think that Iraq was actively seeking to attack America, with weapons of mass destruction or by other means?

Edited August 8, 2007 by GoSox05

[kapkomet]

Does anyone here think that had Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that the war at this point would be considered to be more successful?

 

One more question. Does anyone here think that Iraq was actively seeking to attack America, with weapons of mass destruction or by other means?

First question. Yes. For sure. But you already knew that. And they DID have WMD's - the intelligence was wrong only due to where it was in 2003 (which was not Iraq).

 

Second question. I think there was certain intelligence that suggested that was a possibility. While I don't think it was imminent, over time it was going to become a greater possibility. When you have governments running around saying "death to America", you have to take them at their word. Hello, Iran.

[GoSox05]

First question. Yes. For sure. But you already knew that. And they DID have WMD's - the intelligence was wrong only due to where it was in 2003 (which was not Iraq).

 

Second question. I think there was certain intelligence that suggested that was a possibility. While I don't think it was imminent, over time it was going to become a greater possibility. When you have governments running around saying "death to America", you have to take them at their word. Hello, Iran.

 

 

So your saying that they did have WMD's and they put them in Syria when we invaded or prior to invasion?

 

Are you saying that we should invade Syria and Iran?

[EvilMonkey]

Does anyone here think that had Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that the war at this point would be considered to be more successful?

 

One more question. Does anyone here think that Iraq was actively seeking to attack America, with weapons of mass destruction or by other means?

They attacked America every day when they shot at our planes patrolling the no-fly zone prior to the invasion.

[kapkomet]

So your saying that they did have WMD's and they put them in Syria when we invaded or prior to invasion?

 

Are you saying that we should invade Syria and Iran?

First question, yes. I do think they had WMD's and moved them out.

 

Second question, if ultimately, over time, diplomatic efforts do not work, then yes, again. The difference this time is you better have a damn plan, unlike this time. It's not this clear cut, but you want fodder to say I'm a right wing nutcase war-monger, there you have it.

 

 

[GoSox05]

They attacked America every day when they shot at our planes patrolling the no-fly zone prior to the invasion.

 

 

We did not invade Iraq on the grounds of self-defense from our planes being shot at in the no-fly zone.

[GoSox05]

First question, yes. I do think they had WMD's and moved them out.

 

Second question, if ultimately, over time, diplomatic efforts do not work, then yes, again. The difference this time is you better have a damn plan, unlike this time. It's not this clear cut, but you want fodder to say I'm a right wing nutcase war-monger, there you have it.

 

 

First, do you have proof that weapons were brought into Syria from Iraq during the time of America's invasion.

 

Your talking about invading three countries at one time. I just don't know how you can think that is a good idea. Sorry but it comes off a little crazy. Right wing or left wing, that sounds kinda crazy.

[kapkomet]

First, do you have proof that weapons were brought into Syria from Iraq during the time of America's invasion.

 

Your talking about invading three countries at one time. I just don't know how you can think that is a good idea. Sorry but it comes off a little crazy. Right wing or left wing, that sounds kinda crazy.

If there were proof, it would be all over the place... but I think there's a lot more to the WMD issue then we are EVER told.

 

As to your second point, I didn't say that we invade three countries AT ONE TIME.

[GoSox05]

If there were proof, it would be all over the place... but I think there's a lot more to the WMD issue then we are EVER told.

 

As to your second point, I didn't say that we invade three countries AT ONE TIME.

 

 

Even if your not invading them all at once. That's still a lot of war.

[EvilMonkey]

We did not invade Iraq on the grounds of self-defense from our planes being shot at in the no-fly zone.

You asked

Does anyone here think that Iraq was actively seeking to attack America, with weapons of mass destruction or by other means?

I answered it. Sorry that it doesn't fit your warped world view. Or were they firing off those SAM's by accident?

[EvilMonkey]

First, do you have proof

YOU? Asking for proof? You are kidding, right? Have you ever offered up proof for any of the insane things even the liberals on here slapped you down for calling people racist if they were white don't like illegal immigration? You need to go back to the kids room.

[NorthSideSox72]

YOU? Asking for proof? You are kidding, right? Have you ever offered up proof for any of the insane things even the liberals on here slapped you down for calling people racist if they were white don't like illegal immigration? You need to go back to the kids room.

There is no age limit in the sandbox. Let's take a step back everyone.

 

[Balta1701]

The aluminum tube myth wasn't debunked by the IAEA until Januar Jy 03. The first time Zarqawi was referenced by the President was in October of 2002. As for the other stuff, Senator Nelson of Florida in 2004 says it best - as quoted in the Congressional Record.

If you're being told this in a secure intelligence briefing, and you are John Q Senator - why would you not believe it? It's not coming from the President's speech, it's coming from a secured intelligence briefing.

My biggest thing was that I used a little bit of logic. The UAV thing was simply a joke. Seriously, think about it...what exactly would Iraq have to do to get a UAV to the U.S.? Develop stealth technology, develop a plane capable of flying the entire way around the world without being spotted, or come up with some way of mid-air refueling it, load it with a weaponized material that could be dispersed in an aerosol fashion, get close enough to a major U.S. area to use the thing without the device being intercepted or shot down, actually disperse the stuff, and then have it return safely back to Iraq without leaving any trace behind of who pulled off the stunt. Either that, or it would have had to be loaded onto a naval vessel, which would be even trickier given our presence in the Gulf. The entire concept was simply insane whether or not the CIA believed it, and it was made even more insane by the fact that the UNMOVIC team and media members were allowed to inspect Iraq's threatening "UAV's" and found them held together by duct tape and barely able to carry a camera.

 

The aluminum tubes were the same way. I didn't even need to wait for the CIA estimate...when they were first mentionned, there were reports from actual scientists and the people who manufacture those things which said basically that the only use for those tubes was missiles, that the way they were designed it was impossible for them to be used in centrifuges, and even on top they wouldn't fit into Iraq's old centrifuge setups. So literally, they would have had to be basically melted down and reforged in order to be useful.

 

All this information was out there at the time for people who bothered to look. Even deeper than that, you could tell Mr. Bush had something up his sleeve just by the way he talked. I'll give you my favorite example; the units he used. Saddam produced an enormous amount of chemical and biological weaponry in the 80's. But, the UNSCOM teams in the 90's were able to confirm the destruction of over 95% of the stuff. And given how heavily the U.S. bombed that country, confirming 95% of it was gone was a hell of an accomplishment. But when Mr. Bush spoke, he never gave percentages, he always spoke in volumes. 30,000 liters of anthrax precursers, or whatever you wanted. What he wasn't telling you was that he was talking about like 2% of what was originally there, and that 2% was probably hit by a 2000 lb. bomb in GW1.

 

You should only trust people so far, especially on something like this. The information was out there. I was able to find it. Congressmen and Senators could have found the information to contradict the reports they were giving. It was in the UNSCOM reports, it was in the public domain. It just didn't get hyped on the news, it didn't make the front page of the NY Times, it wound up on page 17 or something like that. If you paid attention, the facts were out there, and virtually every complaint Mr. Bush brought up had a counterpoint publically available which was not given the attention it deserved. If people paid attention, or wanted to find the facts and not just follow the polls, the info was out there.

[kapkomet]

All this information was out there at the time for people who bothered to look. Even deeper than that, you could tell Mr. Bush had something up his sleeve just by the way he talked. I'll give you my favorite example; the units he used. Saddam produced an enormous amount of chemical and biological weaponry in the 80's. But, the UNSCOM teams in the 90's were able to confirm the destruction of over 95% of the stuff. And given how heavily the U.S. bombed that country, confirming 95% of it was gone was a hell of an accomplishment. But when Mr. Bush spoke, he never gave percentages, he always spoke in volumes. 30,000 liters of anthrax precursers, or whatever you wanted. What he wasn't telling you was that he was talking about like 2% of what was originally there, and that 2% was probably hit by a 2000 lb. bomb in GW1.

That's assuming that they never, ever made anymore from when the original stockpiles were "counted".

[GoSox05]

YOU? Asking for proof? You are kidding, right? Have you ever offered up proof for any of the insane things even the liberals on here slapped you down for calling people racist if they were white don't like illegal immigration? You need to go back to the kids room.

 

 

I was just asking for proof on if Iraq had moved weapons into Syria or any other country. I never heard that before, so I was just asking.

 

 

About the "attacking America" question, I meant more if you thought that Iraq would attack the people of America. Something like a nuclear bomb or dirty bomb of that sort. I didn't mean military. Sorry not to clarify.

[Balta1701]

That's assuming that they never, ever made anymore from when the original stockpiles were "counted".

Totally correct. Which was 100% why we needed to get in there with an active inspections regime. When Saddam caved on that demand, which I believe was Sept. 13, 02, the day after the President dropped by the U.N., the need for the war disappeared unless Saddam resisted the UNMOVIC team even harder than he did the UNSCOM team.

 

But when the UNMOVIC team went in, they visited the sites the US said were weapons factories and found jack. They visited the sites sealed off by the UNSCOM team and found the equipment covered with 4 years of dust.

 

Had Saddam refused to admit those inspectors, I'd grant you'd have had a causus belli even if he was disarmed, because you shouldn't just trust him. But the inspectors went in. And since we were going to war no matter what, the fact that the inspectors referred to the U.S. supplied intelligence as "Garbage" was taken as evidence that the inspections didn't work, so we invaded anyway.

[kapkomet]

I was just asking for proof on if Iraq had moved weapons into Syria or any other country. I never heard that before, so I was just asking.

About the "attacking America" question, I meant more if you thought that Iraq would attack the people of America. Something like a nuclear bomb or dirty bomb of that sort. I didn't mean military. Sorry not to clarify.

I don't think they would have directly attacked the US, but they certainly could have funded such an attack, much like they did to Israel for years and years.

 

[Controlled Chaos]

I was just asking for proof on if Iraq had moved weapons into Syria or any other country. I never heard that before, so I was just asking.

About the "attacking America" question, I meant more if you thought that Iraq would attack the people of America. Something like a nuclear bomb or dirty bomb of that sort. I didn't mean military. Sorry not to clarify.

Nobody has concrete proof. I don't know what is true or isn't true, but if you Google 'WMD in syria' you'll find numerous people who believe that is indeed the case.

[GoSox05]

Nobody has concrete proof. I don't know what is true or isn't true, but if you Google 'WMD in syria' you'll find numerous people who believe that is indeed the case.

 

I read a bunch of stuff on this today, mostly by right wing bloggers. A lot of it seem's to be conspiracy theory type stuff. I think if there were even a remote chance that Iraq sent there WMD's to Syria, George Bush would be talking about it and trying to use it to back the war in Iraq and even invade Syria.