I realize Inhofe has a "gift" when it comes to ignoring facts. But, this (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/common/printerfriendlystory.aspx?articleID=070428_238_A1_hVPma51656%22) is way too convenient.
quote:
Inhofe, speaking to the press before Cheney's arrival, lambasted Democrats for Thursday's Senate vote to begin withdrawal from Iraq by Oct. 1 and the press for "mischaracterizing" the reasons for U.S. involvement.
"The whole idea of weapons of mass destruction was never the issue, yet they keep trying to bring this up," Inhofe said.
When asked why Gen. Colin Powell, then U.S. secretary of state, told the United Nations in 2003 that such weapons posed an imminent danger, Inhofe replied: "I can't answer that. In fact, I've never been one of the real strong fans of General Powell."
Pressed for an explanation, Inhofe said weapons of mass destruction were "incidental" to the decision to invade Iraq.
"The media made that the issue because they knew Saddam Hussein had used weapons of mass destruction. So we knew that they were there. But that was incidental to the fact we were going after terrorist camps."
So, Inhofe believes that WMD's were NOT the reason we went to war in Iraq, that it was "incidental".
Hey, now...wait a minute. On Meet the Press in 2002 he said this (//%22http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/conason/2002/09/23/bush/index.html%20%22):
quote:
"Our intelligence system has said that we know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction -- I believe including nuclear. There's not one person on this panel who would tell you unequivocally that he doesn't have the missile means now, or is nearly getting the missile means to deliver a weapon of mass destruction. And I for one am not willing to wait for that to happen."
Yeah, Jim. That's right. What a freakin' liar.
Saying now that WMDs was not a major reason for going into Iraq is just stupid and revisionist.
But to be fair the 2002 quote you gave us doesn't speak to what weight he was giving the WMD issue in relation to the other reasons we went in. Do you see what I'm saying?
I agree that it was stupid, but it may not be untrue.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
I realize Inhofe has a "gift" when it comes to ignoring facts. But, this (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/common/printerfriendlystory.aspx?articleID=070428_238_A1_hVPma51656%22) is way too convenient.
quote:
Inhofe, speaking to the press before Cheney's arrival, lambasted Democrats for Thursday's Senate vote to begin withdrawal from Iraq by Oct. 1 and the press for "mischaracterizing" the reasons for U.S. involvement.
"The whole idea of weapons of mass destruction was never the issue, yet they keep trying to bring this up," Inhofe said.
When asked why Gen. Colin Powell, then U.S. secretary of state, told the United Nations in 2003 that such weapons posed an imminent danger, Inhofe replied: "I can't answer that. In fact, I've never been one of the real strong fans of General Powell."
Pressed for an explanation, Inhofe said weapons of mass destruction were "incidental" to the decision to invade Iraq.
"The media made that the issue because they knew Saddam Hussein had used weapons of mass destruction. So we knew that they were there. But that was incidental to the fact we were going after terrorist camps."
So, Inhofe believes that WMD's were NOT the reason we went to war in Iraq, that it was "incidental".
Hey, now...wait a minute. On Meet the Press in 2002 he said this (//%22http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/conason/2002/09/23/bush/index.html%20%22):
quote:
"Our intelligence system has said that we know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction -- I believe including nuclear. There's not one person on this panel who would tell you unequivocally that he doesn't have the missile means now, or is nearly getting the missile means to deliver a weapon of mass destruction. And I for one am not willing to wait for that to happen."
Yeah, Jim. That's right. What a freakin' liar.
What's your point? He acknowledged WMD in '02, acknowledged in '07 that that was part of equation, not the sole reason. Do you remember the original goals of WOT? To go after people who would use WMD's.
I'm not an Inhofe apologist, I really don't see where the lie is in this. It's sloppy connecting of the dots that gets so much mis-information spread on this war.
The context is plain, here. In the buildup to the Iraq Invasion, Inhofe goes on national tv and tells America that he thinks that Saddam has nukes, missles, and wmd's. Does that sound "incidental" to you?
It's abundantly clear from this statement alone that he thought that WMD's in Iraq were important. Not only that, he went a lot further than most with the pants-cr*pping, scare tactics. Would you agree?
BTW, in 2007, trying to link the WOT to the invasion of Iraq is just plain sad. That "bait and switch" was worn out a very long time ago. We didn't invade Iraq because we thought there were terror camps there.
When Inhofe made his alarmist remarks, we had already booted the Taliban from Afghanistan. As far as we knew, we were already kicking "terrorist camp" *ss. We went into Iraq because guys like Inhofe were shreaking about mushroom clouds, aluminum tubes, and yellow cake uranium.
Rather than face up to the fact that he was wrong (others have, Powell for one), he's now lying and saying it was "never the issue". It was. It was with the President, and it most certainly was with Inhofe.
Being wrong about the facts doesn't make you a liar. Making up your own "facts" does.
quote:
The context is plain, here. In the buildup to the Iraq Invasion, Inhofe goes on national tv and tells America that he thinks that Saddam has nukes, missles, and wmd's. Does that sound "incidental" to you?
No, but again, the quote you gave doesn't prove your point.
quote:
BTW, in 2007, trying to link the WOT to the invasion of Iraq is just plain sad. That "bait and switch" was worn out a very long time ago. We didn't invade Iraq because we thought there were terror camps there.
Did anyone say there were terrorist camps in Iraq? Unless you don't count Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas.
What is the WOT to you? Is the WOT only on Al-Qaeda? Even if it were, are you blind to the fact that Saddam was providing safe haven to Taliban fighters after the war in Afghanistan?
quote:
When Inhofe made his alarmist remarks, we had already booted the Taliban from Afghanistan. As far as we knew, we were already kicking "terrorist camp" *ss.
Is anyone disputing this?
quote:
We went into Iraq because guys like Inhofe were shreaking about mushroom clouds, aluminum tubes, and yellow cake uranium.
That and his flouting of 1441 and the GW ceasefire. That coupled with his possession of a nuclear centrifuge and his attempted purchase of Nodong missiles from NK.
quote:
Rather than face up to the fact that he was wrong (others have, Powell for one), he's now lying and saying it was "never the issue". It was. It was with the President, and it most certainly was with Inhofe.
Being wrong about the facts doesn't make you a liar. Making up your own "facts" does.
Still, it's semantics and gerrymandering with quotes to make an obscure point about him "lying." Better points could be made.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
The context is plain, here. In the buildup to the Iraq Invasion, Inhofe goes on national tv and tells America that he thinks that Saddam has nukes, missles, and wmd's. Does that sound "incidental" to you?
No, but again, the quote you gave doesn't prove your point.
quote:
BTW, in 2007, trying to link the WOT to the invasion of Iraq is just plain sad. That "bait and switch" was worn out a very long time ago. We didn't invade Iraq because we thought there were terror camps there.
Did anyone say there were terrorist camps in Iraq? Unless you don't count Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas.
What is the WOT to you? Is the WOT only on Al-Qaeda? Even if it were, are you blind to the fact that Saddam was providing safe haven to Taliban fighters after the war in Afghanistan?
quote:
When Inhofe made his alarmist remarks, we had already booted the Taliban from Afghanistan. As far as we knew, we were already kicking "terrorist camp" *ss.
Is anyone disputing this?
quote:
We went into Iraq because guys like Inhofe were shreaking about mushroom clouds, aluminum tubes, and yellow cake uranium.
That and his flouting of 1441 and the GW ceasefire. That coupled with his possession of a nuclear centrifuge and his attempted purchase of Nodong missiles from NK.
quote:
Rather than face up to the fact that he was wrong (others have, Powell for one), he's now lying and saying it was "never the issue". It was. It was with the President, and it most certainly was with Inhofe.
Being wrong about the facts doesn't make you a liar. Making up your own "facts" does.
Still, it's semantics and gerrymandering with quotes to make an obscure point about him "lying." Better points could be made.
I think the only reasonable explanation at this point is the IPLaw is the secret love child of Senator Inhoff and President Bush.
Yeah. Spot on. [xx(] I suppose that makes you the love child of Helen Thomas and Noam Chomsky?
From Whitehouse.gov (//%22http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html%22)
quote:
Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. Among those requirements: the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under U.N. supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction. To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside the country -- and these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them so they all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder. And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.
The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.
The problem with putting out multiple explanations about why you're going to war, is that it's begging the question. If there is no clear answer, either you're hiding something or you have no idea why you're going to war. To say that the War was not about WMD, is to call Bush a liar.
That's why I had serious misgivings about the Iraq war in the first place. The reasons kept shifting like the wind. That told me that the justification was weak and on quicksand.
Common sense Rule 1: Keep an eye on a politician when he keeps changing the reasons for something.
Again. Were the reasons that hard to decipher?
1. WMDs and latent/blatent infractions of 1441 and other UN mandates. We still don't know what happened to his WMD.
2. Dovetailing with #1. The potential for him to hand off WMD to terrorist organizations. WMD that are still unaccounted for.
3. Violations of GW I ceasefire. This one was pretty easy.
4. His continual procurement/attempts to procure banned weapons.
I don't recall any other justifications brought before the security counsel other than these.
1441 was justification enough, not to mention him buying banned weapons and harboring Taliban fugitives (though we didn't know until we went in that they were there).
Iplaw wrote:
We still don't know what happened to his WMD.
<end clip>
I'll make it easy. They didn't exist.
[}:)][}:)][}:)]
Let's see.
He DECLARED them to the UN.
Every major intelligence agency in the world verified their existence.
The UN inspectors KNEW he had them, and they were trying to verify that he destroyed what he DECLARED. If they didn't exist what the hell were the UN inspectors doing there?
Some of these weapons WE GAVE HIM.
You've lost your damn mind.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.
In other words: He disarms, or we invade. Damn straight it was WMD. All other items are propaganda meant to drum up public support for invasion.
<iplaw wrote:
The UN inspectors KNEW he had them, and they were trying to verify that he destroyed what he DECLARED. If they didn't exist what the hell were the UN inspectors doing there?
<end clip>
Note the use of the word of "had." UN inspectors looked high and low before the invasion and found nothing.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
<iplaw wrote:
The UN inspectors KNEW he had them, and they were trying to verify that he destroyed what he DECLARED. If they didn't exist what the hell were the UN inspectors doing there?
<end clip>
Note the use of the word of "had." UN inspectors looked high and low before the invasion and found nothing.
Do you even know what the job of the UN inspectors was?
They didn't roam the country looking for WMD. The job of the UN inspectors was to
verify the destruction of declared weapons,
period. Even when they tried to inspect for weapons, Saddam stonewalled them at every turn. Did you magically forget the 12 years before we went in and the resistance of Saddam to UN inspections? Sounds like a strange thing to do for someone who had nothing to hide.
Hans Blix was not the WMD detective possy, roaming a country the size of Texas and looking under rugs and behind hedges for WMD. To think so is just ignorant of the facts.
Scott Ritter from "War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You To Know"
Wikipedia (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter%22)
quote:
There's no doubt Iraq hasn't fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated... We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn't necessarily constitute a threat... It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn't amount to much, but which is still prohibited... We can't give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can't close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can't reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war. (page 28)
We eliminated the nuclear program, and for Iraq to have reconstituted it would require undertaking activities that would have been eminently detectable by intelligence services. (page 32)
If Iraq were producing [chemical] weapons today, we'd have proof, pure and simple. (page 37)
[A]s of December 1998 we had no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any. In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance. (page 46)
90 to 95% verifiably eliminated. Biological unlikely. Chemical and Nuclear reconstitution impossible without detection. Another UN Inspector, smashed by the Administration and their cohorts.
Someone should have told Hans Blix he was wasting his time then...
Do you really want to go down the Scott Ritter road? You do remember that he resigned from UNSCOM in 1998 because he was pissed off that the Clinton administration wouldn't use force against Saddam?
The airstrikes 3 months later must have really satisfied him.
Operation Desert Fox (//%22http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/desert_fox/%22)
I don't know whether it did or not, but the fact that Ritter is a liar is undisputable.
Which side of Ritter's mouth did you quote from? Here's the quote from the other side, same article you cited:
"In January of 1998, his inspection team into Iraq was blocked from some weapons sites by Iraqi officials, who believed that information obtained from these sites would be used for future planning of attacks. UN Inspectors were then ordered out of Iraq by the United States Government, shortly before Operation Desert Fox attacks began in December 1998, using information which had been gathered for the purpose of disarmament to identify targets which would reduce Iraq's ability to wage both conventional and possibly unconventional warfare. This action undermined the position of the UN Weapons Inspectors, who were thereafter denied access to Iraq. Shortly thereafter, he spoke on the Public Broadcasting Service show, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer:
I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program.[1]"
Before we stray too far O/T, CL is trying to create a mountain out of a molehill by quoting two disperate interviews, and mangling the contexts to come up with "Inhofe told a lie".
It creates the mis-information that gets spread around from one person to another and has become commonplace in our culture today.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Before we stray too far O/T, CL is trying to create a mountain out of a molehill by quoting two disperate interviews, and mangling the contexts to come up with "Inhofe told a lie".
It creates the mis-information that gets spread around from one person to another and has become commonplace in our culture today.
This is Revisionist History. Either Inhofe is lying to the public to save face on an unjustifiable war, or Bush was lying about the war being about WMDs.
Those are not the only two options. The more likely scenario is that he's trying to make himself look as good as possible in front of doners. He's a pandering politician, but that's a bit redundant isn't it.
Only a moron could say the war was "unjustified", as if there were no reasons for deposing Saddam. You can argue about how the war has been waged, but the inital overwhelming justification on at least 4 different levels can't be disputed, at least with a straight face. I also think it's a bit of a stretch to say he's "lying." He's a politican, go figure.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Only a moron could say the war was "unjustified", as if there were no reasons for deposing Saddam. You can argue about how the war has been waged, but the inital overwhelming justification on at least 4 different levels can't be disputed, at least with a straight face. I also think it's a bit of a stretch to say he's "lying."
Bush had one justification. The presence of WMD. Period.
Bush:
quote:
The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.
Inhofe:
quote:
"The media made that the issue because they knew Saddam Hussein had used weapons of mass destruction. So we knew that they were there. But that was incidental to the fact we were going after terrorist camps."
If Inhofe is telling the truth, the invasion of Iraq was unjustified. It would be a war under false pretenses, a pre-emptive invasion and occupation of an independent country to stop a presumed threat. The invasion would itself be a War Crime.
Or he might be getting addled in his old age. [;)]
I'll go with MC's assertion of revisionist history, but CL stretching this into "Inhofe's a liar" is going too far with it.
Hey RWarn, here's a politician from up in your old neck of the woods, who had a lot of credibility, who managed to connect the dots on WMD and WOT:
"Congressman Gephardt links Saddam with the threat of terrorists nuking US cities:
BOB SCHIEFFER, Chief Washington Correspondent:
And with us now is the Democratic presidential candidate Dick Gephardt. Congressman, you supported taking military action in Iraq. Do you think now it was the right thing to do?
REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT, D-MO, Democratic Presidential Candidate:
I do. I base my determination on what I heard from the CIA. I went out there a couple of times and talked to everybody, including George Tenet. I talked to people in the Clinton administration.
SCHIEFFER:
Well, let me just ask you, do you feel, Congressman, that you were misled?
GEPHARDT:
I don't. I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA and people who'd served in the Clinton administration. And they said they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass destruction. What we're worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in New York, in Washington and St. Louis. It cannot happen. We have to prevent it from happening. And it was on that basis that I voted to do this.
Congressman Richard Gephardt (Democrat, Montana)
Interviewed on CBS News "Face the Nation"
November 2, 2003
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/03/ftn/printable581509.shtml "
quote:
If Inhofe is telling the truth, the invasion of Iraq was unjustified. It would be a war under false pretenses, a pre-emptive invasion and occupation of an independent country to stop a presumed threat. The invasion would itself be a War Crime.
Maybe you're confusing me with someone else. I clearly stated above that I agree that WMDs were the major reason stated for going into Iraq and most certainly the one that Bush hung his hat on so to speak.
I personally think that WMDs were only one of a few reasons for going into Iraq, and that is probably the case for Inhofe as well, but for him to say that it was for terrorist camps doesn't make any sense to me. Though he could have been speaking of Taliban refugees who were being sheltered in Iraq, but who knows.
But it doesn't matter what he thinks because he is neither a spokesman for the president on the war, nor does he have any more influence than the average congressman.
He can make whatever claims he wants and it won't change the fact that the reasons for going into Iraq were justified.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Did anyone say there were terrorist camps in Iraq?
Yes. Inhofe did. He said that's why we went to war in Iraq. He said it yesterday.
quote:
"The media made that the issue because they knew Saddam Hussein had used weapons of mass destruction. So we knew that they were there. But that was incidental to the fact we were going after terrorist camps."
Four years ago it was Inhofe trying to scare the crap out of America on Sunday morning TV with Saddam's WMDs. But now he says that he was
actually after terror camps and it was the media who talked up WMDs. That is a flat lie.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Did anyone say there were terrorist camps in Iraq?
Yes. Inhofe did. He said that's why we went to war in Iraq. He said it yesterday. quote:
"The media made that the issue because they knew Saddam Hussein had used weapons of mass destruction. So we knew that they were there. But that was incidental to the fact we were going after terrorist camps."
Four years ago it was Inhofe trying to scare the crap out of America on Sunday morning TV with Saddam's WMDs. But now he says that he was actually after terror camps and it was the media who talked up WMDs. That is a flat lie.
Already addressed. See previous post.
The talk about training camps, specific personalities, past infractions...none of those at all justified War. They are only an attempt to save face over the lack of WMD.
This Administration could have come out and said "we messed up", "we'll fix the problem", "we have to go on from here". It wouldn't even be much of an issue now. They kind of hinted at it a little bit, blaming the intel. But then they spun off into tons of their other "justifications" trying to explain why we went. Pumping the same garbage they were pumping before the war. The case for invasion is still being sold. I wish Inhoff were the only salesman, he's always been a kook anyway IMO.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Already addressed. See previous post.
Great. So when Inhofe says, "The whole idea of weapons of mass destruction was never the issue", when in fact it was the primary reason for the invasion of Iraq, that's revisionism.
But when he himself spews scary, peepants rhetoric on national TV, then says it was "
never the issue", that's a lie.
quote:
The talk about training camps, specific personalities, past infractions...none of those at all justified War. They are only an attempt to save face over the lack of WMD.
None of what I have given would be considered past justifications. What did I claim that could be considered as a past or improper justification?
A LOT of prominent Republicans and Democrats hung their hat on the same theory. For some reason, that has been lost to history or convenient forgetfulness.
Not a personal skewer at MC, but it's very revisionist of certain Democrats who helped sell the war to the public in the Senate and House debates of Oct. 2002 to say this is all Bush's fault. They helped sell the war just as much as he did.
Why was it even relevant to WOT? There wasn't a fear of Saddam's Republican Guard using them, so much as Al-Qaeda, Hamas, etc. buying them from Iraq.
At least one other member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, aside from Inhofe thought so:
"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away.
I believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear.
What's more, the terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every possibility that he could turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11th had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror...."
Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
Addressing the US Senate
September 12, 2002
http://edwards.senate.gov/statements/20020912_iraq.html
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Already addressed. See previous post.
Great. So when Inhofe says, "The whole idea of weapons of mass destruction was never the issue", when in fact it was the primary reason for the invasion of Iraq, that's revisionism.
But when he himself spews scary, peepants rhetoric on national TV, then says it was "never the issue", that's a lie.
Again, he could have said that the real issue was Saddam's flatulence issues. It doesn't matter. He's not a spokesman for the administration. All politicians pull this nonsense, and I don't agree with his statement. Who cares?
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
A LOT of prominent Republicans and Democrats hung their hat on the same theory. For some reason, that has been lost to history or convenient forgetfulness.
Not a personal skewer at MC, but it's very revisionist of certain Democrats who helped sell the war to the public in the Senate and House debates of Oct. 2002 to say this is all Bush's fault. They helped sell the war just as much as he did.
Why was it even relevant to WOT? There wasn't a fear of Saddam's Republican Guard using them, so much as Al-Qaeda, Hamas, etc. buying them from Iraq.
At least one other member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, aside from Inhofe thought so:
"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away.
I believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear.
What's more, the terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every possibility that he could turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11th had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror...."
Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
Addressing the US Senate
September 12, 2002
http://edwards.senate.gov/statements/20020912_iraq.html
Yes. And Edwards, being a big boy, apologized. Inhofe would rather re-write history than apologize for being wrong. Says something, don't it.
No. Edwards, being a pandering puss who wants to be President, did the bidding of his string pullers on the far left.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
A LOT of prominent Republicans and Democrats hung their hat on the same theory. For some reason, that has been lost to history or convenient forgetfulness.
Not a personal skewer at MC, but it's very revisionist of certain Democrats who helped sell the war to the public in the Senate and House debates of Oct. 2002 to say this is all Bush's fault. They helped sell the war just as much as he did.
I think it's a fair statement to say "we were working on intelligence given to us by the Administration, which turned out false." I think it's also fair for Democrats to say "we didn't have access to the same information the Administration did." Stating that "The Bush Administration mislead Congress and the public in order to invade Iraq" is politics based on circumstancial evidence, but not necessarily wrong. We may not know for 30 years what exactly happened, we may not know then. The idea that Bush or the Administration as a whole mislead the public to invade Iraq is almost horrifyingly inconcievable, but it's also possible.
And to a degree, I'd say some Democrats did sell the war in a similar manner as the Bush Administration did. Not "as much as". The Administration, and the "Commander in Chief", took us to war.
The only people that end up lily white in this whole thing are people who voted against it in the first place. Can't really blame them I suppose.
quote:
The only people that end up lily white in this whole thing are people who voted against it in the first place. Can't really blame them I suppose.
They are the worst and most spineless of the whole bunch. Remember you can't look at this in hindsight if you want to be fair. You have to put yourself in the shoes of those people reading those intelligence reports at the time. No one could have seen what we were given (by every intelligence agency in the world) and done nothing with it. That would have been a gross dereliction of their duty to protect the this country.
Yeah, just like John Kerry who wasn't against the war until he figured out it was mostly liberals who would vote for him who were tired of the occupation in '04.
If we'd have pulled out in '04 due to pressure from the anti-war types, the complaint from the Democrats would be Bush left the Iraqis to suffer in total chaos by pulling out too soon.
They forgot they emboldened him on this war, they voted for it, using the same intelligence sources he did. They've thrown Bush under the bus for political expedience.
CL, I wouldn't even make mention of Democrats on the issue if you weren't so intent on running down Bush, Inhofe, et. al. at every chance.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
No. Edwards, being a pandering puss who wants to be President, did the bidding of his string pullers on the far left.
Admitting a mistake is pandering, huh? Last I heard, they called it accountability.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
No. Edwards, being a pandering puss who wants to be President, did the bidding of his string pullers on the far left.
Admitting a mistake is pandering, huh? Last I heard, they called it accountability.
[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
They are the worst and most spineless of the whole bunch. Remember you can't look at this in hindsight if you want to be fair. You have to put yourself in the shoes of those people reading those intelligence reports at the time. No one could have seen what we were given (by every intelligence agency in the world) and done nothing with it. That would have been a gross dereliction of their duty to protect the this country.
I disagree. While there was the Administration's case for war, there was info out there that ran counter to the Administration's case.
It wasn't necessarily WMD's, that was mostly credible. It was everything else. It's that problem of having Cheney, Rice, Powell, and everyone else giving multiple explanations for going to war, instead of one single clear explanation. If you have to have all these reasons for War, (some which appear weak, some which simply don't justify war) is you're best reason all that good?
I haven't lambasted anyone for voting for the war. Haven't praised anyone for voting against it. Either was a reasonable conclusion, at the time.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
A LOT of prominent Republicans and Democrats hung their hat on the same theory. For some reason, that has been lost to history or convenient forgetfulness.
Not a personal skewer at MC, but it's very revisionist of certain Democrats who helped sell the war to the public in the Senate and House debates of Oct. 2002 to say this is all Bush's fault. They helped sell the war just as much as he did.
I think it's a fair statement to say "we were working on intelligence given to us by the Administration, which turned out false." I think it's also fair for Democrats to say "we didn't have access to the same information the Administration did." Stating that "The Bush Administration mislead Congress and the public in order to invade Iraq" is politics based on circumstancial evidence, but not necessarily wrong. We may not know for 30 years what exactly happened, we may not know then. The idea that Bush or the Administration as a whole mislead the public to invade Iraq is almost horrifyingly inconcievable, but it's also possible.
And to a degree, I'd say some Democrats did sell the war in a similar manner as the Bush Administration did. Not "as much as". The Administration, and the "Commander in Chief", took us to war.
The only people that end up lily white in this whole thing are people who voted against it in the first place. Can't really blame them I suppose.
That's a pretty reasonable assessment. It may take 30 years to figure out what was expedience, what was CYA, and what was fact.
There's a whole lot of stuff which doesn't smell right on it. I'm just curious how the CIA could have gotten all this so effed up. Tenet sure doesn't seem willing to shed credible light on this.
I just lose patience when someone brings up in conversation that it's all Bush's fault, or a GOP war for the oil interests, etc. There are a whole lot of "unindicted co-conspirators" from the Democrat party who sold the Iraqi threat to the American public for years before we finally went back in and took Hussein out for good.
Keep in mind, Bush II came into office facing a bunch of intel gathered between 1991 and 2002. Bush had a lot of pressure and precedent to consider Saddam a legit threat to U.S. security at home and against our foreign interests and allies.
One thing I'd long forgotten about was this Senate resolution in 1998:
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (sponsored by Bob Kerrey, John McCain, and Joseph Lieberman, and signed into law by President Clinton) states:
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
105th Congress, 2nd Session
September 29, 1998
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1998/980929-in2.htm
Interesting stuff. Just seems like a lot of people think the whole history of American conflict with Iraq resided soley within the Bush administrations.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
No. Edwards, being a pandering puss who wants to be President, did the bidding of his string pullers on the far left.
Admitting a mistake is pandering, huh? Last I heard, they called it accountability.
If he had said it in any context other than his aspirations to gain the most powerful position in the free world, that apology might really mean something. He's got a horse in this race.
quote:
I disagree. While there was the Administration's case for war, there was info out there that ran counter to the Administration's case.
From whom? Please cite these sources. Seems like those who are so outspoken now, are using obtuse reasons to make it seem like they were ahead of the game before we went in.
Anyone who saw the intelligence we were given was compelled to make the same decision we made. Only the staunchly anti-war nuts like Kucinich opposed the removal of Saddam.
quote:
It wasn't necessarily WMD's, that was mostly credible. It was everything else. It's that problem of having Cheney, Rice, Powell, and everyone else giving multiple explanations for going to war, instead of one single clear explanation. If you have to have all these reasons for War, (some which appear weak, some which simply don't justify war) is you're best reason all that good?
Yes. If you bust a drug dealer who is also a murderer for stealing a car, or do you let him go because stealing a car isn't the worst thing he's done?
I think you're confusing the term justification.
quote:
I haven't lambasted anyone for voting for the war. Haven't praised anyone for voting against it. Either was a reasonable conclusion, at the time.
On this we can agree.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
No. Edwards, being a pandering puss who wants to be President, did the bidding of his string pullers on the far left.
Admitting a mistake is pandering, huh? Last I heard, they called it accountability.
If he had said it in any context other than his aspirations to gain the most powerful position in the free world, that apology might really mean something. He's got a horse in this race.
Since when, in politics, is admitting a mistake a sign of strength? Opponents will use that apology to question his judgement. That's why Clinton has never apologized. She's no dummy.
But Edwards is no rookie either. He knew this would cost him, and he apologized anyway. Having a conscience is a b*tch.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
But Edwards is no rookie either. He knew this would cost him, and he apologized anyway. Having a conscience is a b*tch.
Yeah, okay blindman.[8D]
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Yeah, okay blindman.[8D]
Don't take it so personally. McCain
used to have a soul. That's something.
^ Yes and Valerie Plame used to have a job...
MI6 used to be an agency that thought our Government did not "cherry-pick" intelligence to fit an agenda...
But then Scooter Libby used to be an innocent man....
Cheney's friends used to like to go hunting with him ....
and who knows maybe tomorrow more than just a few will see ip as an intelligent soul...
quien sabe?
I would rather hunt with Cheney than Ride with Kennedy.....
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
I would rather hunt with Cheney than Ride with Kennedy.....
As long as Cheney was in front of me I agree...
As for Kennedy....... ride maybe..? in a boat or near water..............never!
[}:)]
I've been inspired to post to this board for the first time. The source of this inspiration is a member who seems to think that if you doubt the administration's reason for war then you are a "moron" or "you are out of your damn mind".
What has this fool been smoking? Why doesn't someone rebut him on his silly claims?
Just a few beginning points for now.
Let's start with the basics - Saddam was our boy since the early 80's, maybe even before that. Who can forget the picture of Rumsfeld meeting with him Baghdad in 1983? The US gave him the chemical weapons technology for use against Iran.
Saddam was secular Muslim. Most certainly an atheist who didnt give a darn about Jihad. In fact Osama Bin Laden despised him and in no way would have allied himself with Saddam. OBL did not have terrorist training camps in Iraq and even the great Decider has stated that there was no link between 9/11 and Saddam So let's not throw the 9/11 link around.
More tomorrow when I have more time. Final shot - even though I voted for Inhofe in every election since 1994, he is kind of stupid. I think he would manipulate the story to paint his decision in a good light in any way he can. I think he would support Bush regardless.
When do you plan to start re-butting.....
What are the chances Inhofe will get voted out next time around? He's becoming a real embarrassment to Oklahomans the world over.
Even the Terminator up in California has chimed in about him.
quote:
What has this fool been smoking?
Usually Rocky Patels, but I do enjoy a Partagas from time to time.
quote:
Why doesn't someone rebut him on his silly claims?
You're welcome to step up to the plate.
quote:
Let's start with the basics - Saddam was our boy since the early 80's, maybe even before that. Who can forget the picture of Rumsfeld meeting with him Baghdad in 1983? The US gave him the chemical weapons technology for use against Iran.
Okay, I don't know that I ever disagreed with anyone about this or how this even relates. How does this rebutt me? If this is a shadow of things to come you'd best find another hobby.
quote:
Saddam was secular Muslim. Most certainly an atheist who didnt give a darn about Jihad.
So what? His Baath party was affiliated with the Sunni faction of Islam, and Abu Nidal, a militant fanatic operated his militant islamic group as an arm of the Baath party. If you're trying to say he hated militant fanatics you're wrong.
quote:
In fact Osama Bin Laden despised him and in no way would have allied himself with Saddam.
So what? Saddam still gave safe haven to Taliban refugees after the war in Afghanistan and they gladly accepted.
quote:
OBL did not have terrorist training camps in Iraq and even the great Decider has stated that there was no link between 9/11 and Saddam So let's not throw the 9/11 link around.
No one on this board said there were training camps in Iraq, certainly not me.
And for the love of God, CAN WE DROP THE SADDAM 9/11 GARBAGE. NO ONE HERE THINKS THERE WAS A LINK BETWEEN SADDAM AND 9/11. CAN I MAKE IT ANY CLEARER?quote:
Final shot - even though I voted for Inhofe in every election since 1994, he is kind of stupid.
Who's the bigger idiot then? The one in office or the idiot who votes him in, all the while knowing the one in office is an idiot?
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Iplaw wrote:
We still don't know what happened to his WMD.
<end clip>
I'll make it easy. They didn't exist.
Except he gassed the Kurds with them, the ones that did not exist.
quote:
Originally posted by mike2000
Let's start with the basics - Saddam was our boy since the early 80's, maybe even before that. Who can forget the picture of Rumsfeld meeting with him Baghdad in 1983? The US gave him the chemical weapons technology for use against Iran.
Common enemies make for strange bed-fellows
Saddam was secular Muslim. Most certainly an atheist who didnt give a darn about Jihad. In fact Osama Bin Laden despised him and in no way would have allied himself with Saddam.
"would have" is speculation. Again, common enemies make for strange bed-fellows
OBL did not have terrorist training camps in Iraq and even the great Decider has stated that there was no link between 9/11 and Saddam So let's not throw the 9/11 link around.
So why did you throw that around? No one else has. Relevance to WOT, was WMD intel which goes all the way back to Clinton- who was saying as late as 2003 there was irrefutable evidence that Saddam had WMD and would happily sell it to terrorists. That definitely fit into the agenda of the WOT. This is one of those things the anti-war/Bush-incompetent/Cheney-is-a-bully crowd keeps forgetting.
More tomorrow when I have more time. Final shot - even though I voted for Inhofe in every election since 1994, he is kind of stupid. I think he would manipulate the story to paint his decision in a good light in any way he can. I think he would support Bush regardless.
It wasn't just Bush who fell victim to flawed intel on WMD in Iraq, his predecessor and a lot of Democratic Congressmen and Senators did as well.
A lot of Democrats supported Bush on this and helped sell this to the public. They didn't renounce their support until it became politically expedient to do so in the '04 election cycle. A LOT of them shifted their public statements to opposition due to public opinion.
If there was anything mis-leading it was the lack of realistic time-tables in Iraq and assuming that we would make a 12 month milk run out of this, set up a puppet gov't, and keep 25 to 50K "peacekeepers" over there to keep an eye on things. Didn't work that way and now those who have run for cover from their votes are trying to say their crystal ball was clearer than the administrations.
quote:
Originally posted by RLitterell
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Iplaw wrote:
We still don't know what happened to his WMD.
<end clip>
I'll make it easy. They didn't exist.
Except he gassed the Kurds with them, the ones that did not exist.
C'mon now, RL, being a genocidal maniac doesn't count as a good reason to depose an asshat dictator. [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Quote
What has this fool been smoking?
Usually Rocky Patels, but I do enjoy a Partagas from time to time.
Quote
I prefer a good Romeo Y Julieta cigar every now and then, and the occasional Cohiba.
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Quote
What has this fool been smoking?
Usually Rocky Patels, but I do enjoy a Partagas from time to time.
Quote
I prefer a good Rome Y Julieta cigar every now and then.
Had a good one a few weeks ago from them that had the outside wrapper dipped in honey....
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Quote
What has this fool been smoking?
Usually Rocky Patels, but I do enjoy a Partagas from time to time.
Quote
I prefer a good Rome Y Julieta cigar every now and then.
Had a good one a few weeks ago from them that had the outside wrapper dipped in honey....
Never had them like that-but I'll take a good Cuban cigar over a Dominican (good cigars in their own right) any day.