Iraq has long been a big issue for me. I began posting on this board kist prior to the invasion. after I was asked to not comment on the issue on another board pertaining to diving. Its a great board and one of the members told me about DA. The following is a Lou Dobbs commentary. It comes closest of anything I have read to expressing my position. Not that you can assume I agree with everything Dobbs expouses. Journalism in my mind is a huge topic one for another thread. Its long past time that we set aside Left and right, rep. or dem. to discuss where we all go forward from here.

In this thread I would like to see us discuss the issue and avoid the posturing. I see leftie tendencies in the right on this board as much as I see very conservative views expressed by some of the lefties. If we can lets put away the recriminations and actually discuss the situation civily.



NEW YORK (CNN) -- We heard two new voices this week in our nation's capital: One partisan and political, the other professional military.

Both will likely play historic roles in the ongoing war in Iraq and determine, in some measure, whether the next year brings progress and success or further failure in Iraq and the Middle East.

Lt. General David Petraeus, at his confirmation hearings to lead our troops in Iraq, told the Senate Armed Services Committee, "The situation in Iraq is dire. The stakes are high. There are no easy choices. The way ahead will be very hard, but hard is not hopeless."

The highly regarded military officer noted, "We face a determined, adaptable, barbaric enemy," and he said that our enemies in Iraq "will try to wait us out. In fact, any such endeavor is a test of wills, and there are no guarantees."

That's a far cry from the early, bold administration assurances of cakewalks and slam dunks.

Newly arrived Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia is a member of that Armed Services Committee, and he gave the Democratic response to President Bush's State of the Union address. In noting that the majority of Americans no longer support the conduct of the war, the former Republican Navy secretary and highly decorated Vietnam veteran declared:

"We need a new direction. Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq."

The words of both men deserve our attention and understanding. They also stand in stark relief to the language and the tone of those in the administration who have urged over the past three years "stay the course," as well as those who have urged immediate withdrawal or "phased redeployment."

In my opinion, Sen. Webb is absolutely correct to assert that "the president took us into this war recklessly," and that "we are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable -- and predicted -- disarray that has followed."

I doubt history will treat this president or this government kindly. But the reality is that there is no appropriate or acceptable way in which to withdraw.

The grievous loss of more than 3,000 young Americans and the wounding of more than 23,000 demands that we leave Iraq not as we recklessly entered it, but responsibly and with the establishment of rational and effective policies that will guide our future relationship with Iraq and all of the Middle East.

That honorable end will not be served by partisan rhetorical flourishes from Capitol Hill, the White House, or either political party. And our military leaders, who while subordinate to civilian leadership, must never be servants of politicians, or be more courageous on the battlefield than in their public expression of their professional military assessments and judgments upon which we all depend.



http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/24/Dobbs.Jan25/index.html

The enemy has the upper hand because they have the ability to wait us out, and it costs them very little in doing so. They need not fight much at all, rather just keep us running around in circles.

The enemy has the upper hand because they have the ability to wait us out, and it costs them very little in doing so. They need not fight much at all, rather just keep us running around in circles.
:nice: The chance of winning in Iraq is very low due to this ability to wait it out. Guerilla style fighting is dirty, bloody, and un-civilized, but it works :poop:

Good analysis by dobbs btw

The "winning in Iraq" idea, to me, is too vague and meaningless.
The way I see it, we "won" the war but we "lost" the occupation. And the many mistakes made along the way helped screw up the whole occupation of course.
I don't understand why, after invading the country, we didn't fall back on the old Marshall Plan from WWII. It definitely worked well when it was last implemented.

You guys are all talking about Military victory and that simply isnt going to happen in Iraq ever. The resolution will come one of two ways. The US will declare victory and leave a la Vietnam or there will be a political accomadation between the Sunni's and shia with the support of Syria and Iran. Thats one of the primary things Bush dosent get. The BS confrontational approach with Iran will not work. Military force today will really only work in concert and in support of diplomacy. One the threat exercised to punctuate the diplomacy. But ultimately there only is a political solution. The sooner the dialouge begins the better. Unfortuantely it wont happen until GWB is gone.

You guys are all talking about Military victory and that simply isnt going to happen in Iraq ever. The resolution will come one of two ways. The US will declare victory and leave a la Vietnam or there will be a political accomadation between the Sunni's and shia with the support of Syria and Iran. Thats one of the primary things Bush dosent get. The BS confrontational approach with Iran will not work. Military force today will really only work in concert and in support of diplomacy. One the threat exercised to punctuate the diplomacy. But ultimately there only is a political solution. The sooner the dialouge begins the better. Unfortuantely it wont happen until GWB is gone.

A-F'ing-men.

M.

The enemy has the upper hand because they have the ability to wait us out, and it costs them very little in doing so. They need not fight much at all, rather just keep us running around in circles.


Exactly right, that's the problem in a nutshell, while we continue to take casualties and the Administration's ratings drop even lower.
In effect we have played right into the hands of Osama, done his job for him. Tied ourselves up in an untenable position and screwed the standing of the US throughout the world.

Exactly right, that's the problem in a nutshell, while we continue to take casualties and the Administration's ratings drop even lower.
In effect we have played right into the hands of Osama, done his job for him. Tied ourselves up in an untenable position and screwed the standing of the US throughout the world.


And like I've said before, it's like Bush is working hand in hand with Osama, OBL couldn't have dreamed of a better outcome..

McCain. That is all.

Screw McCain. When he had a choice between his political career or standing up and doing what was right for his country, he chose his political career.

Sen. Jim Webb - "the president took us into this war recklessly,we are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable -- and predicted -- disarray that has followed."


Concise and correct.

Screw McCain. When he had a choice between his political career or standing up and doing what was right for his country, he chose his political career.
i gave McCain credit a few years back, but not now. he's now only cares about what his fellow conservatives say than anyone else.

The article quoted in the opening post doesn't say anything. It suggests we solve the problem with "diplomacy" and that we enact "rational and effective policies" to pull out our troops in an "honorable end".

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

What the hell does that mean?

Listen. Here's the problem. Sunnis and Shiites want to kill each other. No amount of military force is going to change that. No amount of diplomacy is going to change that. There are no "rational and effective policies" that will change that. Nothing is going to change that!!

Listen. Here's the problem. Sunnis and Shiites want to kill each other. No amount of military force is going to change that. No amount of diplomacy is going to change that. There are no "rational and effective policies" that will change that. Nothing is going to change that!!

Thank you! Among other things, it's a sectarian civil war now and has been for a while! People are forgetting the reality on the ground and what has led us to this point. Pres. Bush is chasing his legacy. How many more will die for it?!

Exactly right, that's the problem in a nutshell, while we continue to take casualties and the Administration's ratings drop even lower.
In effect we have played right into the hands of Osama, done his job for him. Tied ourselves up in an untenable position and screwed the standing of the US throughout the world.

If the Iraq scenario is the new face of war, then we damn well better find a way to defeat it, and quickly.

If the Iraq scenario is the new face of war, then we damn well better find a way to defeat it, and quickly.

Exactly what is the US attempting to defeat in Iraq?

Exactly what is the US attempting to defeat in Iraq?

Barbarism on a level the civilized western world can't play down to.

A political solution…

Everyone of you here that are calling for that tell me: Just how are we to do that?

Given the current ‘actors’ just how is one to be worked out?

Webb only postured, there was no ‘how’ given.

So, here I am a old, fat, dumb, conservative white guy: tell me how we will do this ‘political solution.’

A political solution…

Everyone of you here that are calling for that tell me: Just how are we to do that?

Given the current ‘actors’ just how is one to be worked out?

Webb only postured, there was no ‘how’ given.

So, here I am a old, fat, dumb, conservative white guy: tell me how we will do this ‘political solution.’

Number 1 all parties must agree to a cessation of hostilities before anyone can come to the table. However, I don't think there is any guarantee that they will come to the table. Their blood lust is so great, I'm not sure they can be rational, plus what do we have to offer them in compromise? One way or another they have every confidence that they will win so I don't know see what they have to gain by negotiation. Finally, will the U.S. government negotiate with terrorists? I mean that's exactly what these lowlifes are, stinkin' terrorists.

Barbarism on a level the civilized western world can't play down to.

That is a new one. Speechless.

A political solution…

Everyone of you here that are calling for that tell me: Just how are we to do that?

At this stage, I have no idea.

Given the current ‘actors’ just how is one to be worked out?

At this stage, I have no idea.

Webb only postured, there was no ‘how’ given.

In essence, what he said is that there has to be a new strategy. Who knows if what he has in mind will work. And what exactly is the goal in Iraq again?

So, here I am a old, fat, dumb, conservative white guy: tell me how we will do this ‘political solution.’

Please see my first remark.

The enemy has the upper hand because they have the ability to wait us out, and it costs them very little in doing so. They need not fight much at all, rather just keep us running around in circles.

I will agree with that. Whoever that "enemy" in Iraq is.

Number 1 all parties must agree to a cessation of hostilities before anyone can come to the table. However, I don't think there is any guarantee that they will come to the table. Their blood lust is so great, I'm not sure they can be rational, plus what do we have to offer them in compromise? One way or another they have every confidence that they will win so I don't know see what they have to gain by negotiation. Finally, will the U.S. government negotiate with terrorists? I mean that's exactly what these lowlifes are, stinkin' terrorists.

Very well said.

And it will always come back to this. Those that demand 'political solutions' either don't 'get it' or 'get it' and are only using 'political solutions' as cover to quit.

Want to win?

We CAN do it. How? By convincing 'them' that "they have every confidence that they CAN NOT win.'

You do that with blood

I will agree with that. Whoever that "enemy" in Iraq is.

The enemy can be anyone. They blend into the crowd, and hide in dark corners. Each group has it's political aspirations. My rules of engagement in that mess would be "if it has brown skin, and is acting suspicously, or agressively then grease it, or more simply always assume it's the enemy until proven otherwise.

Very well said.

And it will always come back to this. Those that demand 'political solutions' either don't 'get it' or 'get it' and are only using 'political solutions' as cover to quit.

Want to win?

We CAN do it. How? By convincing 'them' that "they have every confidence that they CAN NOT win.'

You do that with blood

So exactly what are you suggesting?

The enemy can be anyone. They blend into the crowd, and hide in dark corners. Each group has it's political aspirations. My rules of engagement in that mess would be "if it has brown skin, and is acting suspicously, or agressively then grease it, or more simply always assume it's the enemy until proven otherwise.

But the US military is over there as liberators. So then what?

i can't abide any more talk of the need to consort with rogue nations like iran and syria. they have even more dubious agendas then we have in the region. they are in no way to be trusted. neither wants peace. both want expanded influence, at the very least. their agendas have absolutely nothing to do with regional stability, and both nations seek the removal of israel from the region.

now on to iraq. these people understand one language....tough, hard love from a central authority figure. that's just reality. if we are not willing to provide that love until a suitable iraqi replacement can be found, then we have failed. these people must be kept in check by a very strong arm. we need to be brutally efficient occupiers. instead we are hemming and hawing, trying to convince oursleves that we can install a democratic government, which is something most iraqis simply do not understand, and won't...for many, many years. rabidly hunt the opposition, and be so firm with the population that they understand how bad of an idea it would be to become part of the opposition. out.

i gave McCain credit a few years back, but not now. he's now only cares about what his fellow conservatives say than anyone else.

McCain ain't shit! Damn Bush lackey. He thinks he's been hearing from God just like GW! Plus, he was on MTP this past Sunday already being called on his "political savvy":


RUSSERT: One of the things that Dr. Dobson was most concerned about was your support of a, a legislation which would demand that organizations provide their fundraising lists when they were doing grassroots lobbying. This was the Hill newspaper the other day: “McCain does about-face on grassroots reform bill. Senator gets onto same page as base, conservative groups.” You flipped, senator. You were very much in favor of that kind of transparency, and then you voted against it on the floor. Why have you flipped on a legislation that Dr. Dobson cared about, conservative groups cared about? Is it because you’re trying to win their favor in your race for president?

SEN. McCAIN: I, I hate to keep referring to Dr. Dobson, but his—among his many other objections to me was his view of my commitment to the sanctity of marriage. But I—as—over a year ago, I had changed my position on this issue because I believe that it was too big a bite to take. I believe that there’s ambiguities concerning it, and so I believe that it was better to move forward with the reforms that we can make, and so that’s a position that I took well over a year ago.

MR. RUSSERT: But it also helps you politically.

SEN. McCAIN: I don’t—I don’t know how it—how it helps me politically.

MR. RUSSERT: Incurring favor with conservative groups that were very much opposed to your original legislation.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16634747/page/3/

Yall gotta pay attention!

i can't abide any more talk of the need to consort with rogue nations like iran and syria. they have even more dubious agendas then we have in the region. they are in no way to be trusted. neither wants peace. both want expanded influence, at the very least. their agendas have absolutely nothing to do with regional stability, and both nations seek the removal of israel from the region.

now on to iraq. these people understand one language....tough, hard love from a central authority figure. that's just reality. if we are not willing to provide that love until a suitable iraqi replacement can be found, then we have failed. these people must be kept in check by a very strong arm. we need to be brutally efficient occupiers. instead we are hemming and hawing, trying to convince oursleves that we can install a democratic government, which is something most iraqis simply do not understand, and won't...for many, many years. rabidly hunt the opposition, and be so firm with the population that they understand how bad of an idea it would be to become part of the opposition. out.America no longer has the stomach for real war.

While we're busy playing games in the Middle East the rest of the world is making itself ready to oppose the US. China is shooting down satellites, India is getting nuclear reactors from Russia, Iran and South America are forming an alliance against US interests, just to name a few problems.
We need to start thinking about our country and how to actually defend it. I don't believe for a second that sending our military and most of our money to the Middle East is making our country any safer. If anything, North America is more vulnerable than it has ever been before. The Middle East certainly has strategic value where US foreign policy is concerned, but this is not necessarily compatible with what is best for the citiziens of this country.
We need to secure our borders, and we need to start letting some of the rest of the world deal with its own problems, in my opinion. In some ways the more we try to help the more we get blamed anyway. So perhaps there is some value in bringing everybody home instead of thinking that if we just kill some more people we'll achieve "victory", whatever that means.
And has anybody considered this scenario? What if, during our occupation of Iraq, the reputation of the US sinks so low that the dollar's value plummets and the world standard changes to something like the Euro or the Yen? Not only would our economy be devastated, but we would be completely unable to rebuild our military and would be completely vulnerable. To some extent, our economic propserity does depend directly on how the rest of the world feels about us.

So exactly what are you suggesting?

I’ve posted this before…

Within Iraq: everyone disarm, or be smart enough to put their toys away until we leave. Everyone disarm at the point of our guns…disarm or die.

Those that are in Iraq but are not Iraqi: surrender or die. AQ, Iran, whoever.

Then bring the Iraqi parties to the table and work out, with our help (to insure fairness). The big issue remaining is the sharing of oil revenue. That one is easy: 1/3 to go to the national government, 1/3 to the provincial governments, and 1/3 to the people in direct payments similar to the Alaskan trust money.

Simple, done. Lets go home

I’ve posted this before…

Within Iraq: everyone disarm, or be smart enough to put their toys away until we leave. Everyone disarm at the point of our guns…disarm or die.

Those that are in Iraq but are not Iraqi: surrender or die. AQ, Iran, whoever.

Then bring the Iraqi parties to the table and work out, with our help (to insure fairness). The big issue remaining is the sharing of oil revenue. That one is easy: 1/3 to go to the national government, 1/3 to the provincial governments, and 1/3 to the people in direct payments similar to the Alaskan trust money.

Simple, done. Lets go home

what's the glue to keep it together when we leave?

what's the glue to keep it together when we leave?

We will be there in some form or fashion for a long time. We will help them hunt down anyone coming in from the outside

That and self interest, as the deal brokered will be a better deal than they would get with any other goverment.

QUOTE=GROFF200]While we're busy playing games in the Middle East the rest of the world is making itself ready to oppose the US. China is shooting down satellites, India is getting nuclear reactors from Russia, Iran and South America are forming an alliance against US interests, just to name a few problems.[/quote]

China? A 20 years from now problem. They still cannot project their force much beyond their own borders.

India, is on our side, or more precisely, we are on theirs. China is a close neighbor to them

Iran, self-correcting

We need to start thinking about our country and how to actually defend it. I don't believe for a second that sending our military and most of our money to the Middle East is making our country any safer. If anything, North America is more vulnerable than it has ever been before. The Middle East certainly has strategic value where US foreign policy is concerned, but this is not necessarily compatible with what is best for the citiziens of this country.

And what might that be?


We need to secure our borders, and we need to start letting some of the rest of the world deal with its own problems, in my opinion. In some ways the more we try to help the more we get blamed anyway. So perhaps there is some value in bringing everybody home instead of thinking that if we just kill some more people we'll achieve "victory", whatever that means.

You sound like Pat Buchanan…not all together a bad thing

And has anybody considered this scenario? What if, during our occupation of Iraq, the reputation of the US sinks so low that the dollar's value plummets and the world standard changes to something like the Euro or the Yen? Not only would our economy be devastated, but we would be completely unable to rebuild our military and would be completely vulnerable. To some extent, our economic propserity does depend directly on how the rest of the world feels about us.

…and we have been talking about this since Vietnam.

Not going to happen…we are and will remain for a very long time that of, the currency of last refuge. The safest place in a very un-safe world.

China? A 20 years from now problem. They still cannot project their
force much beyond their own borders.
They didn't have a problem killing Americans during the Korean War. And, we have huge trade deficits with them right now. Our current relationship is not equitable and cannot be sustained.
Not going to happenwe are and will remain for a very long time that
of, the currency of last refuge. The safest place in a very un-safe
world.
Globalization is distributing the world's wealth...it is slowly but surely leaving the United States. Asia is well suited to be the next economic superpower.
This idea of the US as some indestructible entity is what's going to really get us into trouble. We need to start planning for what happens when we're not the biggest bully on the block anymore.

Within Iraq: everyone disarm, or be smart enough to put their toys away until we leave. Everyone disarm at the point of our guns…disarm or die.
Since the goverment cannot provide security, it is not fair to ask people to put down their weapons, especially from us. We kill more, more will hate us and fight back. The iraqi goverment (and those militia leaders inside the goverment) needs to have the political will to stop the violence.


Then bring the Iraqi parties to the table and work out, with our help (to insure fairness). The big issue remaining is the sharing of oil revenue. That one is easy: 1/3 to go to the national government, 1/3 to the provincial governments, and 1/3 to the people in direct payments similar to the Alaskan trust money.
They need to agree on not killing each other first.

The enemy can be anyone. They blend into the crowd, and hide in dark corners. Each group has it's political aspirations. My rules of engagement in that mess would be "if it has brown skin, and is acting suspicously, or agressively then grease it, or more simply always assume it's the enemy until proven otherwise.

You are utterly incapable of surprising me.

M.

i can't abide any more talk of the need to consort with rogue nations like iran and syria. they have even more dubious agendas then we have in the region. they are in no way to be trusted. neither wants peace. both want expanded influence, at the very least. their agendas have absolutely nothing to do with regional stability, and both nations seek the removal of israel from the region.


Sounds like the US and these so-called rogue nations should get along just fine then. Every single word you used to describe these nations applies tenfold to the US.
Looking down your nose at them is absurd.

M.

The enemy has the upper hand because they have the ability to wait us out, and it costs them very little in doing so. They need not fight much at all, rather just keep us running around in circles.
We can also wait out if we can minimize our casualties.

You are utterly incapable of surprising me.

M.

Hey, I know you don't agree, but what to do? We were wasting japs and germans for months after the war was over but eventually they got the message. These people have the capability of being far more savage than the japanese and that's saying a lot. How do you fight savages without fighting dirty? The answer is easy, you can't.

We can also wait out if we can minimize our casualties.

But we'd still pay a heavy price politically, and monetarily.

Sounds like the US and these so-called rogue nations should get along just fine then. Every single word you used to describe these nations applies tenfold to the US.
Looking down your nose at them is absurd.

M.

That's complete nonsense. Both are corporate sponses of the 2007 terror olympics, and have been since Bush was snorting coke and his brother was getting rich from little S&L pryamid scheme.

Something of interest:

Top 10 Myths of the Iraq War. In no particular order. There are more, but ten is a manageable number.

1-No Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Several hundred chemical weapons were found, and Saddam had all his WMD scientists and technicians ready. Just end the sanctions and add money, and the weapons would be back in production within a year. At the time of the invasion, all intelligence agencies, world-wide, believed Saddam still had a functioning WMD program. Saddam had shut them down because of the cost, but created the illusion that the program was still operating in order to fool the Iranians. The Iranians wanted revenge on Saddam because of the Iraq invasion of Iran in 1980, and the eight year war that followed.

2-The 2003 Invasion was Illegal. Only according to some in the UN. By that standard, the invasion of Kosovo and bombing of Serbia in 1999 was also illegal. Saddam was already at war with the U.S. and Britain, because Iraq had not carried out the terms of the 1991 ceasefire, and was trying to shoot down coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone.

3-Sanctions were working. The sanctions worked for Saddam, not for Iraq. Saddam used the sanctions as an excuse to punish the Shia majority for their 1991 uprising, and help prevent a new one. The "Oil For Food" program was corrupted with the help of bribed UN officials, and mass media outlets that believed Iraqi propaganda. Saddam was waiting out the sanctions, and bribing France, Russia and China, with promises of oil contracts and debt repayments, to convince the UN to lift the sanctions.

4-Overthrowing Saddam Only Helped Iran. Of course, and this was supposed to make Iran more approachable and open to negotiations. With the Iraqi "threat" gone, it was believed that Iran might lose its radical ways and behave. Iran got worse as a supporter of terrorism and developer of WMD. Irans clerical dictatorship did not want a democracy next door. The ancient struggle between the Iranians and Arabs was brought to the surface, and the UN became more active in dealing with problems caused by pro-terrorist government of Iran. As a result of this, the Iranian police state has faced more internal dissent. From inside Iran, Iraq does not look like an Iranian victory.

5-The Invasion Was a Failure. Saddam's police state was overthrown and a democracy established, which was the objective of the operation. Peace did not ensue because Saddam's supporters, the Sunni Arab minority, were not willing to deal with majority rule, and war crimes trials. A terror campaign followed. Few expected the Sunni Arabs to be so stupid. There's a lesson to be learned there.

6-The Invasion Helped Al Qaeda. Compared to what? Al Qaeda was a growing movement before 2003, and before 2001. But after the Iraq invasion, and especially the Sunni Arab terrorism, al Qaeda fell in popularity throughout the Moslem world. Arab countries cracked down on al Qaeda operations more than ever before. Without the Iraq invasion, al Qaeda would still have safe havens all over the Arab world.

7-Iraq Is In A State of Civil War. Then so was Britain when the IRA was active, and so is Spain today because ETA is still active. Both IRA and ETA are terrorist organizations based on ethnic identity. India also has tribal separatist rebels who are quite active. That's not considered a civil war. This is all about partisans playing with labels for political ends, not accurately describing a terror campaign.

8-Iraqis Were Better Off Under Saddam. Most Iraqis disagree. Check election results and opinion polls. Reporters tend to ask Iraqi Sunni Arabs this question, but they were the only ones who benefited from Saddams rule.

9-The Iraq War Caused Islamic Terrorism to Increase in Europe. The Moslem unrest in Europe was there before 2001, and 2003. Interviews of Islamic radicals in Europe reveals that the hatred is not motivated by Iraq, but by daily encounters with hostile natives. Blaming Islamic terrorism on Iraq is another attempt to avoid dealing with a homegrown problem.

10- The War in Iraq is Lost. By what measure? Saddam and his Baath party are out of power. There is a democratically elected government. Part of the Sunni Arab minority continues to support terror attacks, in an attempt to restore the Sunni Arab dictatorship. In response, extremist Shia Arabs formed vigilante death squads to expel all Sunni Arabs. Given the history of democracy in the Middle East, Iraq is working through its problems. Otherwise, one is to believe that the Arabs are incapable of democracy and only a tyrant like Saddam can make Iraqi "work." If democracy were easy, the Arab states would all have it. There are problems, and solutions have to be found and implemented. That takes time, but Americans have, since the 18th century, grown weary of wars after three years. If the war goes on longer, the politicians have to scramble to survive the bad press and opinion polls. Opposition politicians take advantage of the situation, but this has nothing to do with Iraq, and everything to do with local politics in the United States.

anyone want to refute any/all of these?

Kind of the response I expected. Irregardless of the huge mistake Bush and Blair made in beginning this little nightmare senario the world cannot just walk away from the mess. That said this is, however, a regional religious and cultural conflict the US has insinuated itself into. The only way out is a political solution and that political solution must involve Syria and Iran. The solution must move forward on two fronts.

First the religious front. We have an opportunity to bring together Shia and Sunni to talk about the conflict in religious terms. It will take a massive effort of all world relgions to sit down and mediate the religous conflicts. The three primary Judeo/christian sects have far more in common than they do in differences. All are "people of the Book" in Islamic terms and have at their heart the same belief structure. Without an attempt at religious reconciliation the political resolution will be very difficult.

Secondly politically. The Israeli / Arab issue. the Palistinians must have a resolution. The conflict is a festering sore in the side of any resolution to the middle east conflicts. For years they have been used by Arab leaders as political footballs as they try to maintain power in their respective countries. It will be a difficult conversation but it must happen. The whole issue of power and fairness needs to be dealt with in virtually every country in the ME. Saudi has big problems with its governance and if one is to really look at most of the fundamentalist problems they generally have Saudi beginnings.

The goals of any solution must begin with the removal of Western troops from the ground in the ME. Understandably many countries get very nervous and upset at western involvement in the ME. The US in particular is a flashpoint for trouble. Coalition troops need to be replaced by ME peacekeepers. A combined force representative of all of the countries in the ME including Syria and Iran needs to replace the coalition. Its the only way to make it work. Western countries need to provide logisitical and monetary support but not be the point of the spear so to speak . You cannot exclude "rogue" nations as they have been called. We found it possible to talk to East block nations during the cold war and it was the only thing that kept conflict at bay. We should be able to talk to Syria and Iran. Really the primary stumbling block in this is the USA and its "war on terrorism" approach. Its a lousy policy and needs to be abandoned.

Unfortuantely none of the above will happen until the present US leadership is down the road in political terms. The only way out of this mess is compromise. It will take decades to arrive at a ultimate resolution and we must be prepared for ups and downs. While the military hammer must always be present for the olive branch to be accepted there is no military solution to this problem. The first step must be the opening of discussion and the first goal must be the removal of US troops from the ME. The US needs to go home and deal with its deficit. That is the second greatest threat to world stability. And the US simply cannot afford 100 billion in spending in the ME ad nauseum. There must be a massive effort to find alternative sources of energy. Oil must become a less important factor in world affairs. Ethanol is a stupid stupid effort and totally counterproductive. In reality it is a political effort to win the support of the the ag base in the US and will have a negative effect on the enviroment.

Ok my little rant is done but the most important part of it is really the need to open discussions. If the US continues to talk tough on Iran and will not talk to Syria or Iran many more will continue to die each day without any hope. The US cannot just pick up and leave but the sooner conditions allow them to leave the better.

There is no such word as "irregardless".

TSQUARE: "7-Iraq Is In A State of Civil War. Then so was Britain when the IRA was active, and so is Spain today because ETA is still active. Both IRA and ETA are terrorist organizations based on ethnic identity. India also has tribal separatist rebels who are quite active. That's not considered a civil war. This is all about partisans playing with labels for political ends, not accurately describing a terror campaign"

Your ignorance of the reality of matters in Europe is staggering. The IRA and ETA conducted various bombing campaigns over many years, at no time was it too dangerous to travel from either Heathrow or Madrid airport into the city unless in an armoured column.
At no time did either organisation plant IED's as currently used in Iraq to ambush army patrols, the IRA planted "roadside bombs" made of C4 plus scrap iron and four inch nails.
At no time did either organisation completely control large areas of major cities such as to exclude patrols by the police.
At no time did either organisation use Death Squads to round up and execute political opponents on a regular basis.
At no time did either organisation use suicide bombers for ANY purpose whatsoever.

In short, your comparison is without merit.

There is no such word as "irregardless".

ir·re·gard·less /ˌɪrɪˈgɑrdlɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ir-i-gahrd-lis] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adverb Nonstandard. regardless.


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

[Origin: 1910–15; ir-2 (prob. after irrespective) + regardless]


—Usage note Irregardless is considered nonstandard because of the two negative elements ir- and -less. It was probably formed on the analogy of such words as irrespective, irrelevant, and irreparable. Those who use it, including on occasion educated speakers, may do so from a desire to add emphasis. Irregardless first appeared in the early 20th century and was perhaps popularized by its use in a comic radio program of the 1930s.

Language changes and evolves I like the emphasis so I use it.

Something of interest:

Top 10 Myths of the Iraq War. In no particular order. There are more, but ten is a manageable number.

1-No Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Several hundred chemical weapons were found ...

Anything with a best-before date later than, say, 1988?

2-The 2003 Invasion was Illegal. Only according to some in the UN.

You're a signatory to the UN Charter which makes UN rules binding on you. The UN Charter prohibits invasions of the type that took place in 2003 unless you were defending yourself against invasion from them. Balsa wood "drones of death" with a range of 100 yards don't count...

3-Sanctions were working. The sanctions worked for Saddam, not for Iraq.

Saddam had not reconstituted his military in any meaningful way. He was contained and confined. He could do nothing in 2/3rds of his own country, let alone pose any sort of threat to anyone else. Rice and Powell said the sanctions were working precisely as intended:

Powell: "We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..." - 24 February 2001 during Powell's visit to Cairo, Egypt

Rice: "But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." - 29 July 2001 during an appearance on "CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer"

4-Overthrowing Saddam Only Helped Iran. Of course, and this was supposed to make Iran more approachable and open to negotiations. With the Iraqi "threat" gone, it was believed that Iran might lose its radical ways and behave. Iran got worse as a supporter of terrorism and developer of WMD.

Well...you've said it all here: Yes, the invasion of Iraq helped Iran.

6-The Invasion Helped Al Qaeda. Compared to what? Al Qaeda was a growing movement before 2003, and before 2001.

But never before had they had access to weapons stockpiles and the sort of training ground that Iraq provided.

7-Iraq Is In A State of Civil War.

Yeah, it's not, right? :eek7: :rofl: :rofl:

3000 people are dying a month in Iraq due to sectarian -- Iraqi on Iraqi -- violence. WTF do you call what's happening there?

8-Iraqis Were Better Off Under Saddam. Most Iraqis disagree.

And many agree:

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32693
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/24/earlyshow/main1649689.shtml
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/ap-still-insists-on-civil-war-in-iraq
http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3&art_id=vn20061026063400559C925359

etc.

9-The Iraq War Caused Islamic Terrorism to Increase in Europe.

US actions in Iraq did a couple of things. Anti-US and anti-Western sentiment grew sharply when the Western powers invaded an Arab state for no good reason. Second, taking their eye off Afghanistan allowed AQ to disperse and the Taliban to regroup. You think nothing's been going on in northern Pakistan since 2003?

10- The War in Iraq is Lost. By what measure?

Iraq is your new Vietnam. You will lose Iraq just like you lost Vietnam.

First the religious front. We have an opportunity to bring together Shia and Sunni to talk about the conflict in religious terms.
We did. Only they did not agree on peace.

It will be a difficult conversation but it must happen.
It is happening, just too difficult to get to the result you want.

The goals of any solution must begin with the removal of Western troops from the ground in the ME. Understandably many countries get very nervous and upset at western involvement in the ME. The US in particular is a flashpoint for trouble. Coalition troops need to be replaced by ME peacekeepers. A combined force representative of all of the countries in the ME including Syria and Iran needs to replace the coalition. Its the only way to make it work. Western countries need to provide logisitical and monetary support but not be the point of the spear so to speak.
Maybe this will make the terrorists rethink who they want to kill and where. Will this stop the sectarian revanges? Or stop the criminals?

You cannot exclude "rogue" nations as they have been called. We found it possible to talk to East block nations during the cold war and it was the only thing that kept conflict at bay. We should be able to talk to Syria and Iran.
We are. We want Iran to abandon nuclear program. You think this is a bad policy?

Really the primary stumbling block in this is the USA and its "war on terrorism" approach. Its a lousy policy and needs to be abandoned.
Terrorists plan to kill you, it may be ok with you, but not everyone.

K posted excellent rebuttals to the ten 'points'.

I'll just add, in relation to :

"5-The Invasion Was a Failure. Saddam's police state was overthrown and a democracy established, which was the objective of the operation. Peace did not ensue because Saddam's supporters, the Sunni Arab minority, were not willing to deal with majority rule, and war crimes trials. A terror campaign followed. Few expected the Sunni Arabs to be so stupid. There's a lesson to be learned there."

That is a patently dishonest description of what went down in Iraq. The US excluded important political leaders from the process of democratization, for starters.
Everyone who knew the terrain expected sectarian violence after the invasion.
Trying to blame this on Sunni stupidity is ignorant, insulting, and deviously manipulative.

M.

... repost

Trying to blame this on Sunni stupidity is ignorant, insulting, and deviously manipulative.

M.

None of the above, except that it fits your view of things.

Something of interest:

Top 10 Myths of the Iraq War. In no particular order. There are more, but ten is a manageable number.

1-No Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Several hundred chemical weapons were found, and Saddam had all his WMD scientists and technicians ready. Just end the sanctions and add money, and the weapons would be back in production within a year. At the time of the invasion, all intelligence agencies, world-wide, believed Saddam still had a functioning WMD program. Saddam had shut them down because of the cost, but created the illusion that the program was still operating in order to fool the Iranians. The Iranians wanted revenge on Saddam because of the Iraq invasion of Iran in 1980, and the eight year war that followed.

2-The 2003 Invasion was Illegal. Only according to some in the UN. By that standard, the invasion of Kosovo and bombing of Serbia in 1999 was also illegal. Saddam was already at war with the U.S. and Britain, because Iraq had not carried out the terms of the 1991 ceasefire, and was trying to shoot down coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone.

3-Sanctions were working. The sanctions worked for Saddam, not for Iraq. Saddam used the sanctions as an excuse to punish the Shia majority for their 1991 uprising, and help prevent a new one. The "Oil For Food" program was corrupted with the help of bribed UN officials, and mass media outlets that believed Iraqi propaganda. Saddam was waiting out the sanctions, and bribing France, Russia and China, with promises of oil contracts and debt repayments, to convince the UN to lift the sanctions.

4-Overthrowing Saddam Only Helped Iran. Of course, and this was supposed to make Iran more approachable and open to negotiations. With the Iraqi "threat" gone, it was believed that Iran might lose its radical ways and behave. Iran got worse as a supporter of terrorism and developer of WMD. Irans clerical dictatorship did not want a democracy next door. The ancient struggle between the Iranians and Arabs was brought to the surface, and the UN became more active in dealing with problems caused by pro-terrorist government of Iran. As a result of this, the Iranian police state has faced more internal dissent. From inside Iran, Iraq does not look like an Iranian victory.

5-The Invasion Was a Failure. Saddam's police state was overthrown and a democracy established, which was the objective of the operation. Peace did not ensue because Saddam's supporters, the Sunni Arab minority, were not willing to deal with majority rule, and war crimes trials. A terror campaign followed. Few expected the Sunni Arabs to be so stupid. There's a lesson to be learned there.

6-The Invasion Helped Al Qaeda. Compared to what? Al Qaeda was a growing movement before 2003, and before 2001. But after the Iraq invasion, and especially the Sunni Arab terrorism, al Qaeda fell in popularity throughout the Moslem world. Arab countries cracked down on al Qaeda operations more than ever before. Without the Iraq invasion, al Qaeda would still have safe havens all over the Arab world.

7-Iraq Is In A State of Civil War. Then so was Britain when the IRA was active, and so is Spain today because ETA is still active. Both IRA and ETA are terrorist organizations based on ethnic identity. India also has tribal separatist rebels who are quite active. That's not considered a civil war. This is all about partisans playing with labels for political ends, not accurately describing a terror campaign.

8-Iraqis Were Better Off Under Saddam. Most Iraqis disagree. Check election results and opinion polls. Reporters tend to ask Iraqi Sunni Arabs this question, but they were the only ones who benefited from Saddams rule.

9-The Iraq War Caused Islamic Terrorism to Increase in Europe. The Moslem unrest in Europe was there before 2001, and 2003. Interviews of Islamic radicals in Europe reveals that the hatred is not motivated by Iraq, but by daily encounters with hostile natives. Blaming Islamic terrorism on Iraq is another attempt to avoid dealing with a homegrown problem.

10- The War in Iraq is Lost. By what measure? Saddam and his Baath party are out of power. There is a democratically elected government. Part of the Sunni Arab minority continues to support terror attacks, in an attempt to restore the Sunni Arab dictatorship. In response, extremist Shia Arabs formed vigilante death squads to expel all Sunni Arabs. Given the history of democracy in the Middle East, Iraq is working through its problems. Otherwise, one is to believe that the Arabs are incapable of democracy and only a tyrant like Saddam can make Iraqi "work." If democracy were easy, the Arab states would all have it. There are problems, and solutions have to be found and implemented. That takes time, but Americans have, since the 18th century, grown weary of wars after three years. If the war goes on longer, the politicians have to scramble to survive the bad press and opinion polls. Opposition politicians take advantage of the situation, but this has nothing to do with Iraq, and everything to do with local politics in the United States.

anyone want to refute any/all of these?


This nonsense was lifted from FreeRepublic.. No surprise..

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1775179/posts


All ofthose things have already been "refuted/de-bunked", repeating the same lies over and over again doesn't make them the truth..

Just look at the first point that claims "hundreds of chemical weapons were found", the world knows that that is absolute BS, and it claims "all intelligence agencies, world-wide, believed Saddam still had a functioning WMD program."..Hahaha, who do they expect to believe that nonsense? Is that why the entire world was against our invasion and didn't believe the wild eyed claims being made by the BA?? Hell behind the scenes even the Bush administration knew they were lying and that Iraq had no WMD's, that was just the big excuse they used to dupe people into supporting their war, and some still believe it no matter how much evidence is shown to them..

You won't see this posted on FreakRepublic...

http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/60min.320.240.mov

This nonsense was lifted from FreeRepublic.. No surprise..


I didn’t get it from there, I got it from a newsletter put out by a well respected military analyst. I ASSUME the guy at Free Republic got it there as well.

All of those things have already been "refuted/de-bunked", repeating the same lies over and over again doesn't make them the truth..

Want to give it a try then? Of course not.

But if you’d like, start with the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act signed by Clinton…three years before Bush took office.

If Bush lied, how did he get Clinton and his Administration to lie for him years before taking office?

Just look at the first point that claims "hundreds of chemical weapons were found", the world knows that that is absolute BS, and it claims "all intelligence agencies, world-wide, believed Saddam still had a functioning WMD program."..Hahaha, who do they expect to believe that nonsense?

Anyone paying attention.

"We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," he said. "But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved." -David Key

Is that why the entire world was against our invasion and didn't believe the wild eyed claims being made by the BA?? Hell behind the scenes even the Bush administration knew they were lying and that Iraq had no WMD's, that was just the big excuse they used to dupe people into supporting their war, and some still believe it no matter how much evidence is shown to them..

The ‘whole world’ wasn’t…you are attempting to re-write history.

Did Bush lie?

Almost all of the Democratic members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, seeing much of the same intelligence reports given to the White House, and with direct access to the intelligence communities and raw intelligence data, agreed, including Hillary Rodham Clinton. The intelligence arms of most major foreign governments, including those that opposed the war, agreed.

The UN concurred that Saddam had not accounted for stockpiles of WMD that were known to exist after the end of the first Gulf War. So, according to the U.S. Democratic leadership, there is only one logical conclusion that one can draw from the lack of WMD found in Iraq -- George W. Bush lied us into the war.

And:

If Bush lied and knew it was a lie, AND had the power and ability to make all that ‘show’ before the war, why didn’t he (and his people) go the ‘last step’ and provide us WMDs to ‘find’ in the sand, in the post-war period? Wouldn’t everything been better for him (Bush) and the world been better for it?

The only salient point to make about Iraq right now, regardless of myths believed or not believed, is that the country is now very unstable, and that 3,000 Iraqis are being killed every month, and that over 1.5 million people have fled the country, and that this is ALL due to the invasion and occupation by the USA. This is not what Bush promised, nor what he envisioned. He is now putting his fingers in a dam that has more leaks than he has fingers!

I didn’t get it from there, I got it from a newsletter put out by a well respected military analyst. I ASSUME the guy at Free Republic got it there as well.



Oh but you leave to us to search the net for the source of this sophmoric propaganda. FreeRepublic came up first in my search.




Want to give it a try then? Of course not.


Give what a try? It's full of lies, BS, and the same repeated nonsense we've been plastered with by the Bushistas for 4 years now. Just because you post some list doesn't mean it contains anything close to the truth or any facts whatsoever! Especially when it's stuff we've de-bunked years ago on this board.. I've been all over it..



But if you’d like, start with the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act signed by Clinton…three years before Bush took office.

If Bush lied, how did he get Clinton and his Administration to lie for him years before taking office?


Did Clinton or Bush invade Iraq using faked intel (Office of special plans that your little propaganda piece didn't mention), fear mongering, and 100% concocted lies? It's an easy one...

Why don't you talk about the OSP? Doesn't fit into your agenda now does it..:rolleyes:



Anyone paying attention.


And it's clearly not you! I've been proven right on this war, and I won't let anybody continue to spread this dis-information un-checked.

It's why getting your information from administration lapdogs and Republican pundits isn't a good idea.. But I don't expect anything to change for the die-hards..


"We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," he said. "But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved." -David Key


That's your evidence??? Do you have any idea how un-reliable defectors have been and that the actual evidence has shown that Iraq gave up it's pursuit of these weapons back in the 1990's and everything they had was destroyed in the 1991 Gulf war or afterwards by UN inspectors and the Iraqi's themselves? Obviously not, there's no excuse for not knowing these things and peddling these lies that were de-bunked years ago upon us now.

The entire basis for this war was on the "stockpiles of WMD's" Iraq supposedly had, the nuclear program, the balsa wood drones of death, etc.. There is zero evidence for any of them, and if Iraq moved anything to another county before we invaded them, that shoots the entire arguement for war in the foot. Saddam would have kept the weapons and used them on invading forces if he had them, since he didn't, the phantom weapons certainly weren't a threat to us, nor was it cause for war. Hell, it wasn't during the 80's when the Reagan administration helped him acquire them and use them to kill. Why was it 15 years later? Oh right, because the neo-cons decided it was the best way to gain support for their imperial motives...:nonono:


Here's the facts straight from the horses mouth, not from mystery people proclaiming things that are based on absolutely zero evidence.

Hussein Kamel
Positions that Hussein Kamel has held:

* Head of Iraq's chemical, biological and missile weapons programs


Hussein Kamel participated in the following events as an active participant:

August 22, 1995

Hussein Kamel, Iraq’s former minister of military industry—who was Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law and who had overseen Saddam’s nuclear, chemical, biological and missile weapons programs for almost a decade—is interviewed shortly after defecting by UNMOVIC Executive Chairman Rolf Ekeus, Professor Maurizio Zifferero, deputy director of the Internal Atomic Energy Agency,and Nikita Smidovick of UNSCOM. During the interview, Kamel says that Iraq had destroyed all of its banned weapons after the First Gulf War. “I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons—biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed,” he tells his interviewers. With regard to Anthrax, which Kamel says had been the “main focus” of Iraq’s biological program, Kamel says, “nothing remained.” Regarding the nerve gas, VX, Kamel says, “they put it in bombs during last days of the Iran-Iraq war. They were not used and the program was terminated.” When asked if the program had been reconstituted, Kamel replies, “We changed the factory into pesticide production. Part of the establishment started to produce medicine ... We gave instructions not to produce chemical weapons.” On the issue of prohibited missiles, Kamel states: “[N]ot a single missile left but they had blueprints and molds for production. All missiles were destroyed.” Kamel also says that inspections worked in Iraq. “You have important role in Iraq with this. You should not underestimate yourself. You are very effective in Iraq,” he reveals. [Kamal, 8/22/1995 pdf file] But this information is not made public. Newsweek reports in March 2003 that according to its sources, “Kamel’s revelations about the destruction of Iraq’s WMD stocks were hushed up by the UN inspectors ... for two reasons. Saddam did not know how much Kamel had revealed, and the inspectors hoped to bluff Saddam into disclosing still more.” [Scotsman, 2/24/2003; Newsweek, 3/3/2003] Kamel also says that Khidhir Hamza, an Iraqi nuclear scientist who defected in 1994 and who will be a source for claims regarding Iraq’s alleged nuclear weapons program in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, is “a professional liar.” “He worked with us, but he was useless and always looking for promotions,” he tells his interviewers. “He consulted with me but could not deliver anything. . . . He was even interrogated by a team before he left and was allowed to go.” [New York Review of Books, 2/26/2004] At around the same time, Kamel is also interviewed by the CIA and Britain’s MI6. According to sources interviewed by Newsweek, Kamel provides them with the same information. [Scotsman, 2/24/2003; Newsweek, 3/3/2003 Sources: Unnamed sources] But after this is revealed on February 24, 2003 by Newsweek’s John Barry, the CIA issues a strong denial. “It is incorrect, bogus, wrong, untrue,” CIA spokesman Bill Harlow will say. [Reuters, 2/24/2003]


http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=hussein_kamel


Now what has the available evidence shown? Let's see, no WMD's of any kind ever found, which corroborates what Kamel told us.

It's too easy..



The ‘whole world’ wasn’t…you are attempting to re-write history.


That's rich from a revisionist such as yourself. Prior to the Iraq war there were worldwide protests against it, the largest against a single event in world history, and nobody other than the Brits believed our BS. And that means the British government, not the people..


Did Bush lie?


Of course, everyone but the most tireless Bush apologists knows this. WMD's? None. Al-Qaeda ties? How many lies can you ignore?


Almost all of the Democratic members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, seeing much of the same intelligence reports given to the White House, and with direct access to the intelligence communities and raw intelligence data, agreed, including Hillary Rodham Clinton.


You are perpetuating lies...

Conservatives falsely claimed White House and Congress saw "same intelligence" on Iraqi threat

Shortly after leading Democrats pushed for the completion of a congressional investigation into the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence, White House officials responded that such scrutiny of their handling of the intelligence is unwarranted because both the White House and Congress possessed the same flawed reports and came to the same incorrect conclusions. Numerous conservative media figures have since echoed this argument. But the claim that the administration and Congress saw the same intelligence ignores several important facts. First, taking into account assessments such as the Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB), the White House typically has access to more intelligence than does Congress -- and indeed, this was the case with prewar intelligence on Iraq. Second, the Bush administration began making claims about the Iraqi threat months before Congress received any substantial intelligence analysis. And third, the administration received information directly from alternative intelligence sources, specifically the since-discredited Office of Special Plans and Iraqi National Congress.

Ouch..

Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee have repeatedly disputed the claim that members of Congress and the White House have equal access to intelligence information. During a November 4 press conference, Rockefeller and Feinstein directly addressed this issue. Both noted, for example, that committee members are not privy to the Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) -- a written summary of intelligence information that the CIA provides to the president. (The White House even withheld from Senate investigators the PDBs on Iraq delivered to the Oval Office prior to the war.):

ROCKEFELLER: I mean, one of things that they -- that Chairman Roberts likes to do is to try to point out that there were a lot of Democrats who voted for the -- going to the United Nations, and if that didn't work, going to the war. And then people say, "Well, you know, you all had the same intelligence that the White House had." And I'm here to tell you that is nowhere near the truth. We not only don't have, nor probably should we have, the Presidential Daily Brief, we don't have the constant people who are working on intelligence who are very close to him. They don't release their -- an administration which tends not to release -- not just the White House, but the CIA, DOD [Department of Defense], others -- they control information. There's a lot of intelligence that we don't get that they have.


http://mediamatters.org/items/200511080006


:jes:


The intelligence arms of most major foreign governments, including those that opposed the war, agreed.


Again not true, even our own intelligence agencies dis-agreed!!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/23/cia.iraq/index.html

Ex-CIA official: WMD evidence ignored
'60 Minutes' report: White House disregarded good intelligence

A retired CIA official has accused the Bush administration of ignoring intelligence indicating that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and no active nuclear program before the United States-led coalition invaded it, CBS News said Sunday.

Tyler Drumheller, the former highest-ranking CIA officer in Europe, told "60 Minutes" that the administration "chose to ignore" good intelligence, the network said in a posting on its Web site.

Drumheller said that, before the U.S.-led attack on Iraq in 2003, the White House "ignored crucial information" from Iraq's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, that indicated Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.

Drumheller said that, when then-CIA Director George Tenet told President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other high-ranking officials that Sabri was providing information, his comments were met with excitement that proved short-lived.

"[The source] told us that there were no active weapons of mass destruction programs," Drumheller is quoted as saying. "The [White House] group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested. And we said 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.' "

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/23/60-minutes-cia-official-reveals-bush-cheney-rice-were-personally-told-iraq-had-no-wmd-in-fall-2002/

And there you have it, it wasn't about protecting us from WMD's or about ties to Al-qaeda, it was about the PNAC plan to re-shape the Middle East to their warped fantasy. Why you willingly go to bat for these criminals I don't know, it sure doesn't do you any good. I'd be pissed as all hell if I was lied to and used..

The UN concurred that Saddam had not accounted for stockpiles of WMD that were known to exist after the end of the first Gulf War.

Meaningless.


So, according to the U.S. Democratic leadership, there is only one logical conclusion that one can draw from the lack of WMD found in Iraq -- George W. Bush lied us into the war.


And that is correct.


If Bush lied and knew it was a lie, AND had the power and ability to make all that ‘show’ before the war, why didn’t he (and his people) go the ‘last step’ and provide us WMDs to ‘find’ in the sand, in the post-war period? Wouldn’t everything been better for him (Bush) and the world been better for it?


Probably because even they are aware of the fact that you can't just grab some VX from a chemical weapons lab in the US (Yes, we actually have stockpiles of WMD's!), and place it into Iraq without the experts tracing it back to it's origin. It's just not that simple. A chemical or bio-weapon doesn't just appear out of thin air, there would have to be supporting infrastructure and equipment. Besides, once they got their war, they won, they didn't need to prove anything to anyone, that's the nature of the neo-conservative idealogues..

Oh but you leave to us to search the net for the source of this sophmoric propaganda. FreeRepublic came up first in my search.

Your research is your problem.






I've been all over it…

…

And it's clearly not you! I've been proven right on this war, and I won't let anybody continue to spread this dis-information un-checked.

Excellent! An expert! So rare a find on the anti-war side of things…

So you ‘were right’ about the war? Well, I wasn’t here then so maybe you could fill me in on how you knew all this?

Detail for me the phases that the war has gone through…
Of those have we ‘won’ any of them?

Name for me gains that ‘the other side’ has made, territory they now hold, other countries now on their side, etc.

Detail why David Key still thinks that WMDs were present only to be sent to Syria.


Did Clinton or Bush invade Iraq…

Clinton was a pussy, then as now. If Clinton knew it was ‘fake’ why sign the bill?


That's your evidence??? Do you have any idea how un-reliable defectors have been and that the actual evidence has shown that Iraq gave up it's pursuit of these weapons back in the 1990's and everything they had was destroyed in the 1991 Gulf war or afterwards by UN inspectors and the Iraqi's themselves?

Of course you know about the mountain of paper that the Saddam regime? Care to explain how those documents detail programs that you say didn’t exist?




The entire basis for this war was on the "stockpiles of WMD's"

Then you can explain away the war resolution as passed by Congress in October 2002 vote authorizing the president to use force against Iraq—a vote backed by 29 Democratic senators and 126 Democratic representatives—as the necessity of regime change in Iraq was a rare point of agreement between the two parties.

AND

The publicly stated goal of the so called neo-cons to re-make the Middle East


www.cooperativeresearch.org

Don’t you ever criticize my sources…geeesh…


Now what has the available evidence shown?

As of right now, all the available evidence shows that some quantity of probable WMD material was moved out of Iraq in the months leading up to the war.



And there you have it, it wasn't about protecting us from WMD's or about ties to Al-qaeda, it was about the PNAC plan to re-shape the Middle East to their warped fantasy. Why you willingly go to bat for these criminals I don't know, it sure doesn't do you any good. I'd be pissed as all hell if I was lied to and used..

Please clarify your own conflicted statements…

Probably because even they are aware of the fact that you can't just grab some VX from a chemical weapons lab in the US (Yes, we actually have stockpiles of WMD's!), and place it into Iraq without the experts tracing it back to it's origin. It's just not that simple. A chemical or bio-weapon doesn't just appear out of thin air, there would have to be supporting infrastructure and equipment. Besides, once they got their war, they won, they didn't need to prove anything to anyone, that's the nature of the neo-conservative idealogues..

Please clarify your own conflicted statements…

If we did ‘give all this shit to Saddam’ could we not match it? And even if all that you said on this one point is true, couldn’t they have just sent someone willing to lie? Empty shells, a bunch of guys in protective suites, standing around… CNN takes the photos and we’re done. I mean you wish us to believe that this is all one huge fraud…but without an end. Planned years in advance, with full knowledge that they (WMDs) were not there, an election coming up, and you want us to believe that not one person, not one, involved in this, the biggest fraud of the century, thought to say; “hey guys? What happens when they don’t find anything?”

Well CA, you are the expert, I for one eagerly await you explaining it all this to me, a poor, dumb, mind-numbed robot of a conservative.

Your research is your problem.

Actually on this board its your responsibility to back up your statements








Excellent! An expert! So rare a find on the anti-war side of things…

So you ‘were right’ about the war? Well, I wasn’t here then so maybe you could fill me in on how you knew all this?

Have a look at posts during the run up to this invasion all of the events that have taken place were predicted by many of us using two simple devices, Common sence and some basic knowledge of history

Detail for me the phases that the war has gone through…

Of those have we ‘won’ any of them?

Actually the initial attack on Afganistan was brilliant. Well conducted with minimal exposure and political risk from there it went down hill including the Invasion of Iraq. On the Invasion it was the followon forces that were soley lacking and a big enough mistake to negate the military success

Name for me gains that ‘the other side’ has made, territory they now hold, other countries now on their side, etc.

1. They have isolated the US politically from the majority of its allies with the exception of the UK and after the next election you can probably add the UK to the list.
2. they have managed to make the worlds only superpower look vulnerable

3. In failing to get Bin Laden they have provided a shining example of how a weak adversary can deal with a superpower

3. The little tiny terrorist act on 9-11 has led to the metasticis of Isalmic resistance through out the world.

4. Al Qaeda managed to get the US to do exactly what they wanted..Attack a muslim country and give them the beginnings of the believer/non believer conflict they wanted

Detail why David Key still thinks that WMDs were present only to be sent to Syria.

So far all of the evidence shows that while most of the WMD's were destroyed during the Gulf war the remainder were in fact dealt with by the UN inspectors. Had the US allowed the Inspectors to finish their jobs 3100 american service men would be going home to their families tonight, 15000 US servicemen wouldnt be dealing with the effects of their wounds, tens of thousands of Iraqi's would be alive tonight and Afganistan would probably been in the bag by now. The evidence shows at least a concerted campaign of misinformation by the Bush Administration and probably outright lies.





Clinton was a pussy, then as now. If Clinton knew it was ‘fake’ why sign the bill?

Ill leave this one to an American because the way the US government operates is almost unfathomable to me. The sharp left right divide seems capable of creating decision makeing processes that defy logic.




Of course you know about the mountain of paper that the Saddam regime? Care to explain how those documents detail programs that you say didn’t exist?

They are gone, blown up destroyed. How about I come over and seriously audit your record keeping system and you havent even been bombed into submission by a superpower






Then you can explain away the war resolution as passed by Congress in October 2002 vote authorizing the president to use force against Iraq—a vote backed by 29 Democratic senators and 126 Democratic representatives—as the necessity of regime change in Iraq was a rare point of agreement between the two parties.

Simple 9-11 scared the hell out of Americans who for years considered themselves immune to terror. Living inside a bubble in a world that for the most part has suffered terrorist acts and recognizes them for the very small threat they are. Quite rightly all the while seeing them as Criminal acts not acts of war

AND

The publicly stated goal of the so called neo-cons to re-make the Middle East

Man neocons by their actions have been proven to be the bumbling dolts of the Universe. Totally blinded by their own prejudice's and preconseptions of the world





As of right now, all the available evidence shows that some quantity of probable WMD material was moved out of Iraq in the months leading up to the war.

Totally not!!! Show us the proof. US government statements sure dont agree with you



If we did ‘give all this shit to Saddam’ could we not match it? And even if all that you said on this one point is true, couldn’t they have just sent someone willing to lie? Empty shells, a bunch of guys in protective suites, standing around… CNN takes the photos and we’re done. I mean you wish us to believe that this is all one huge fraud…but without an end. Planned years in advance, with full knowledge that they (WMDs) were not there, an election coming up, and you want us to believe that not one person, not one, involved in this, the biggest fraud of the century, thought to say; “hey guys? What happens when they don’t find anything?”

Cause you would have gotten caught. Given their actions the present leadership isnt the brightest bulb in the box

Well CA, you are the expert, I for one eagerly await you explaining it all this to me, a poor, dumb, mind-numbed robot of a conservative.

CA myself and very few others on this board predicted virtually the entire results of the US actions in this war on terror. While we arent batting 1000 Ill bet its over 750. Quite abit better than most self styled "experts" on CNN. And anyone who defines them selves as either simply as a conservative or a socialist ignoring the grey areas in between where the truth really lies yes is a "poor, dumb, mind-numbed robot "


Used bold type for my answers no time to parse it.

Actually on this board its your responsibility to back up your statements

Hold that thought…

Have a look at posts during the run up to this invasion all of the events that have taken place were predicted by many of us using two simple devices, Common sence and some basic knowledge of history



Actually the initial attack on Afganistan was brilliant. Well conducted with minimal exposure and political risk from there it went down hill including the Invasion of Iraq. On the Invasion it was the followon forces that were soley lacking and a big enough mistake to negate the military success

The subject was Iraq

Name for me gains that ‘the other side’ has made, territory they now hold, other countries now on their side, etc.

1. They have isolated the US politically from the majority of its allies with the exception of the UK and after the next election you can probably add the UK to the list.
2. they have managed to make the worlds only superpower look vulnerable

3. In failing to get Bin Laden they have provided a shining example of how a weak adversary can deal with a superpower

3. The little tiny terrorist act on 9-11 has led to the metasticis of Isalmic resistance through out the world.

4. Al Qaeda managed to get the US to do exactly what they wanted..Attack a muslim country and give them the beginnings of the believer/non believer conflict they wanted

A perfect score! You managed to provide an answer w/o addressing any of the issues I asked about, while at the same time getting every point you made wrong.



So far all of the evidence shows that while most of the WMD's were destroyed during the Gulf war the remainder were in fact dealt with by the UN inspectors. Had the US allowed the Inspectors to finish their jobs 3100 american service men would be going home to their families tonight, 15000 US servicemen wouldnt be dealing with the effects of their wounds, tens of thousands of Iraqi's would be alive tonight and Afganistan would probably been in the bag by now. The evidence shows at least a concerted campaign of misinformation by the Bush Administration and probably outright lies.

And yet you are the only one that will make that definitive Not David Key, who I’ve already quote, not Hans Blix, the UN guy, nobody.

These guys won’t say that (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf)


And BTW three times as many Iraqis would be dead at the hands of Saddam.



They are gone, blown up destroyed. How about I come over and seriously audit your record keeping system and you havent even been bombed into submission by a superpower

Really?

that does not explain anything like this (http://iraqdocs.********.com/2006/06/2002-document-chemical-material-hidden.html)


Simple 9-11 scared the hell out of Americans who for years considered themselves immune to terror. Living inside a bubble in a world that for the most part has suffered terrorist acts and recognizes them for the very small threat they are. Quite rightly all the while seeing them as Criminal acts not acts of war

Ahhhh…the old it’s just a criminal act thing. Well that’s cool and all. Why don’t we get an arrest warrant for OBL and you can go serve him? And on the way back you can tell him that ‘we’ aren’t really at war… I mention that because he thinks so…and did way before 9/11 even.


Man neocons by their actions have been proven to be the bumbling dolts of the Universe. Totally blinded by their own prejudice's and preconseptions of the world

Only if, in the end, this doesn’t work. If it does…? Well that’s for another day


CA myself and very few others on this board predicted virtually the entire results of the US actions in this war on terror.

Wow… so you knew that Saddam would not fight only to have his troops fade out to fight another day? And you knew that AQ would come to the ‘aid’ of old secular Saddam…and get their butts stomped…and as a result piss most of the Arab world off, and you of course, knew that Iran would just have to get into it, and allow us to catch them at working with both sides and that THAT would piss everyone off.

Got any stock tips?

Used bold type for my answers no time to parse it.

Which was a pain don’t you know?

Got any stock tips?


Sure :)
Buy international stocks, in Canada ABX, Golds is going to continue to rise, Oil aint finished and in the US Berkshire Hathaway A or B or SHLD.

You call Berkshire a tip? Please...

If you knew all that about Iraq surely you can do better than this!

Your research is your problem.


No, my research is why I'm right, maybe if you did some yourself, you'd be here with us in the right as well, it's your decision..


Excellent! An expert! So rare a find on the anti-war side of things…


Actually not, you see, we rely on scientists and people known as "experts" in their field, while you rely on people who profit off of war, and idealogues.


So you ‘were right’ about the war? Well, I wasn’t here then so maybe you could fill me in on how you knew all this?


Because I did my homework, I researched it, I even went out of my way to talk to people that had spent years on the ground in Iraq like former military, UN inspectors, among others. Instead of sitting around watching football like most American do with their free time..

And like Cherry said, common sense, knowing about Iraq we knew immediately when the BA made their wild claims about Iraq that they were false. All it took was a general background of the issue.

Here's a few..

http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23040
http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24588
http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24456&page=2
http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24506
http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showpost.php?p=295702&postcount=12
http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26608
http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24981
http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26827


And there's lots more where all that came from. What you notice in those threads is I was correct about pretty much everything, and the neo-cons were wrong about everything, after all the heat we took, It's nice to say "told ya so!"..




Detail for me the phases that the war has gone through…
Of those have we ‘won’ any of them?


Define "win"? I thought we invaded to capture Saddam's arsenal of WMD's and remove him from power?



Name for me gains that ‘the other side’ has made, territory they now hold, other countries now on their side, etc.


Clue: This isn't WW2


Detail why David Key still thinks that WMDs were present only to be sent to Syria.



And he still thinks that incorrect info? Even if he did, it doesn't make it true. Please show some evidence of this.


Clinton was a pussy, then as now. If Clinton knew it was ‘fake’ why sign the bill?


I don't know if Clinton is a "pussy" because he didn't go sacrifice over 3000 American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's...


Of course you know about the mountain of paper that the Saddam regime? Care to explain how those documents detail programs that you say didn’t exist?


Provide evidence that they existed, to date, nothing has been found, it's time to return to reality..



Then you can explain away the war resolution as passed by Congress in October 2002 vote authorizing the president to use force against Iraq—a vote backed by 29 Democratic senators and 126 Democratic representatives—as the necessity of regime change in Iraq was a rare point of agreement between the two parties.

That is not what it authorized, you are mis-representing it just like you did with the other things that you've not addressed in my other post.




AND

The publicly stated goal of the so called neo-cons to re-make the Middle East


http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Done.


Don’t you ever criticize my sources…geeesh…


Cooperative research is about as solid as it gets, everything is heavily cited and sourced, do you have info to suggest otherwise?



As of right now, all the available evidence shows that some quantity of probable WMD material was moved out of Iraq in the months leading up to the war.


LOL, then I suppose you canshow us some of this "evidence"??

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/22/fox-conspiracy/

:rolleyes:


Please clarify your own conflicted statements…

Your confusion is your own, I already linked to the PNAC website..

Please clarify your own conflicted statements…


Again, common sense wins out, re-read if you don't understand.


If we did ‘give all this shit to Saddam’ could we not match it? And even if all that you said on this one point is true, couldn’t they have just sent someone willing to lie? Empty shells, a bunch of guys in protective suites, standing around… CNN takes the photos and we’re done.


I already explained why why that wouldn't work, and why they wouldn't even bother to do so..


I mean you wish us to believe that this is all one huge fraud…but without an end. Planned years in advance, with full knowledge that they (WMDs) were not there, an election coming up, and you want us to believe that not one person, not one, involved in this, the biggest fraud of the century, thought to say; “hey guys? What happens when they don’t find anything?”


Like they cared? They were creating fake intelligence anyways, that's the thing with these neo-cons, they don't think ahead or plan for the consequences. As we can see by what a disaster Iraq turned out to be.


Well CA, you are the expert, I for one eagerly await you explaining it all this to me, a poor, dumb, mind-numbed robot of a conservative.


Did you see my other post detailing some of these things? Have you noticed that no WMD's were ever found and that no ties to Al-Qaeda were ever discovered?

The first one is all about Imad Khadduri…is/was a Baath party stooge then is from what I could find, almost 4 years later remains one. Discredited and ignored by everyone except the most harded and far left.

The second one details getting Saddam to allow more inspections to find: “Their hope is that inspections will eliminate any hidden WMD stockpiles and production facilities and ensure Hussein cannot acquire any of these deadly weapons.”

Thus conceding that those weapons existed…

The 3rd link didn’t work

The 4th talked only about something in a UK report being ‘lifted’ from another source. No effort to ‘debunk’ any of it…

The 5th one is only a rant on your part…not a single fact to be had. Oh, and it also seems to be off-topic.

The 6th link has this quote from you:

It's quite fitting, we know for a fact that attacking Iraq will increase terrorism against us. The governments job is to protect us, they have and are willfully failing.

4 yeas later…how many times have we been attacked? Right… nailed that sucker CA!

The 7th one…the BBC gets taken on a guided tour and you use that as proof?

Is this the best you got? You ‘predicted’ nothing. In fact, ever post was an angry screed against the US in general and Bush in particular, quoting some leftist source and then more often that not, ignoring what was in the very quote you provided. Link #2 particularly.

The prevailing attitude of the left at the time was…’so he has then, way do we care? If we invade he’ll use them, sure, on our troops!’

All you try to do here is re-write history…and even if I was not here, I can see that’s what you are doing.



Now you might want to take a look at this New evidence unveils chemical, biological, nuclear, ballistic arms (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213)

The Iraq Survey Group, ISG, whose intelligence analysts are managed by Charles Duelfer, a former State Department official and deputy chief of the U.N.-led arms-inspection teams, has found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" under U.N. Security Council resolutions, a senior administration official tells Insight.

"There is a long list of charges made by the U.S. that have been confirmed, but none of this seems to mean anything because the weapons that were unaccounted for by the United Nations remain unaccounted for."

Both Duelfer and his predecessor, David Kay, reported to Congress that the evidence they had found on the ground in Iraq showed Saddam's regime was in "material violation" of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the last of 17 resolutions that promised "serious consequences" if Iraq did not make a complete disclosure of its weapons programs and dismantle them in a verifiable manner.

The United States cited Iraq's refusal to comply with these demands as one justification for going to war.

Both Duelfer and Kay found Iraq had "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing its prohibited chemical- and biological-weapons [BW] programs," the official said. "They found a prison laboratory where we suspect they tested biological weapons on human subjects."

In addition, through interviews with Iraqi scientists, seized documents and other evidence, the ISG learned the Iraqi government had made "clandestine attempts between late 1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300-kilometer-range [807 miles] ballistic missiles -- probably the No Dong -- 300-kilometer-range [186 miles] antiship cruise missiles and other prohibited military equipment," Kay reported.

In testimony before Congress on March 30, Duelfer, revealed the ISG had found evidence of a "crash program" to construct new plants capable of making chemical- and biological-warfare agents.

The ISG also found a previously undeclared program to build a "high-speed rail gun," a device apparently designed for testing nuclear-weapons materials. That came in addition to 500 tons of natural uranium stockpiled at Iraq's main declared nuclear site south of Baghdad, which International Atomic Energy Agency spokesman Mark Gwozdecky acknowledged to Insight had been intended for "a clandestine nuclear-weapons program."

In taking apart Iraq's clandestine procurement network, Duelfer said his investigators had discovered that "the primary source of illicit financing for this system was oil smuggling conducted through government-to-government protocols negotiated with neighboring countries [and] from kickback payments made on contracts set up through the U.N. oil-for-food program."

So much for containment huh?

or some first hand knowledge[/url

Dr. Kay and the ISG have already proven that Iraq was in violation of several UN resolutions. Their findings include, among others, that Iraq was involved in manufacturing of the biotoxin Ricin 'right up to the end,' the restarting of Saddam's nuclear program, and the development of BW 'seed' agents, such as botulinum, that could be used to regenerate stockpiles of BW agents once UN sanctions were lifted.

[url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/11/the_generals_fantasy_wars.html] yet he’s no shill for the Bush Administration (http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/03/case_not_closed_iraqs_wmd_stoc.html)

When Bill Clinton left office in January 2001, he was convinced that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and active WMD research and production programs. George Tenet, the Clinton appointed head of the CIA, told George W. Bush prior to the war that the case that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was "a slam dunk."

Why is this?

Because it was true…

"Saddam Had WMD"

That's the title of an editorial in Investors Business Daily, which reprises some of the recently discovered evidence. There are Saddam's audio tapes:

On them, Saddam talks openly of programs involving biological, chemical and, yes, nuclear weapons.

[A]s late as 2000, Saddam can be heard in his office talking with Iraqi scientists about his ongoing plans to build a nuclear device. At one point, he discusses Iraq's plasma uranium program — something that was missed entirely by U.N. weapons inspectors combing Iraq for WMD. This is particularly troubling, since it indicates an active, ongoing attempt by Saddam to build an Iraqi nuclear bomb.

"What was most disturbing," said John Tierney, the ex- FBI agent who translated the tapes, "was the fact that the individuals briefing Saddam were totally unknown to the U.N. Special Commission (or UNSCOM, the group set up to look into Iraq's WMD programs)."

Then there's the account given by Georges Sada, second in command in Iraq's air force:
He has written a book, "Saddam's Secrets," that details how the Iraqi dictator used trucks, commercial jets and ships to remove his WMD from the country. At the time, the move went largely undetected, because Iraq pretended the massive movement of materiel was to help Syrian flood victims.

Nor is Sada alone. Ali Ibrahim, another of Saddam's former commanders, has largely corroborated Sada's story.

So how was Saddam able to use his "cheat and retreat" tactics without being found out?

He had help, according to a former U.S. Defense Department official.

"The short answer to the question of where the WMD Saddam bought from the Russians went was that they went to Syria and Lebanon," said John Shaw, former deputy undersecretary of defense, in comments made at an intelligence summit Feb. 17-20 in Arlington, Va.

"They were moved by Russian Spetsnaz (special ops) units out of uniform that were specifically sent to Iraq to move the weaponry and eradicate any evidence of its existence," he said.

It is also important to note that only a tiny percentage of the documents left behind by Saddam's regime that potentially relate to WMD programs and support for terrorist groups, and only a tiny percentage of the audiotapes recorded in Saddam's office, have been translated. So far, we haven't even seen the tip of the iceberg; but even that has been enough to require the conventional wisdom to be re-evaluated. It seems virtually certain that there is much more to come on these subjects.(3)

Yes a blog, but one quoting a well known and respected news source.

And yet there is more

David Key, the former head of the coalition's hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction says:

"We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," he said. "But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved."

Then there is Georges Sada, a former Iraqi general, who says in his book "Saddam's Secrets,"

"There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands," Mr. Sada said. "I am confident they were taken over."

Mr. Sada, 65, told the Sun that the pilots of the two airliners that transported the weapons of mass destruction to Syria from Iraq approached him in the middle of 2004, after Saddam was captured by American troops.

"I know them very well. They are very good friends of mine. We trust each other. We are friends as pilots," Mr. Sada said of the two pilots. He declined to disclose their names, saying they are concerned for their safety. But he said they are now employed by other airlines outside Iraq.

The pilots told Mr. Sada that two Iraqi Airways Boeings were converted to cargo planes by removing the seats, Mr. Sada said. Then Special Republican Guard brigades loaded materials onto the planes, he said, including "yellow barrels with skull and crossbones on each barrel." The pilots said there was also a ground convoy of trucks.

The flights - 56 in total, Mr. Sada said - attracted little notice because they were thought to be civilian flights providing relief from Iraq to Syria, which had suffered a flood after a dam collapse in June of 2002.(4)

So, we have people on both sides saying that the WMDs were there, yet were moved.

4 yeas later…how many times have we been attacked?
Hundreds of times on the streets of Iraq. Ever heard of an IED? :eek3:

Trying to justify this war at this point is pretty sophomoric. There were numerous governmental failures in the run up to battle and the international situation was tense... it was a unique situation that a unique man reacted to in what appears to be the biggest mistake of his life. It's probably a little more relavant to talk about the future of Iraq and the death of authoritative US foreign relations than to bicker about 4 year old political nuances.

Out of the mouths of babes…

So…here I was minding my own business and what pops up on this cold Sunday morning?


Meet the Press (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903253/)

MR. RUSSERT: Let’s watch it and come back and talk about it.

(Videotape, October 7, 2002)

SEN. EDWARDS: My position is very clear. The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. I’m a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that is presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein’s regime is a grave threat to America and our allies. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today, that he’s used them in the past, and that he’s doing everything he can to build more. Every day he gets closer to his long-term goal of nuclear capability.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: “ A grave threat to America,” do you still believe that?

SEN. EDWARDS: No.

MR. RUSSERT: Why were you so wrong?

SEN. EDWARDS: For the same reason a lot of people were wrong. You know, we—the intelligence information that we got was wrong. I mean, tragically wrong. On top of that I’d—beyond that, I went back to former Clinton administration officials who gave me sort of independent information about what they believed about what was happening with Saddam’s weapon—weapons programs. They were also wrong. And, based on that, I made the wrong judgment. I, I, I want to go another step, though, because I think this is more than just weapons of mass destruction. I mean, I—at the—I remember vividly what I was thinking about at the time. It was, first, I was convinced he had weapons of mass destruction. That’s turned out to be completely wrong and false. I had internal conflict because I was worried about what George Bush would do. I didn’t have—I didn’t have confidence about him doing the work that needed to be done with the international community, the lead-up to a potential invasion in Iraq. I didn’t know, in fairness, that he would be as incompetent as he’s been in the administration of the war. But I had—there were at least two things going on. It wasn’t just the weapons of mass destruction I was wrong about. It’s become absolutely clear—and I’m very critical of myself for this—become absolutely clear, looking back, that I should not have given this president this authority.


“I went back to former Clinton administration officials who gave me sort of independent information about what they believed about what was happening with Saddam’s weapon—weapons programs.”

???

I thought Bush & Co. made this all up?

I thought it was all a lie?

How is that?

But wait there is more…

MR. RUSSERT: In that same speech I showed earlier, you seemed to embrace, however, a—the Bush vision of what could happen in Iraq. And let’s just watch that and come back and talk about it.

SEN. EDWARDS: Sure.

(Videotape, October 7, 2002)

SEN. EDWARDS: Democracy will not spring up by itself overnight in a multiethnic, complicated society that’s suffered under one repressive regime after another for generations. The Iraqi people deserve and need our help to rebuild their lives and to create a prosperous, thriving, open society. All Iraqis, including Sunnis, Shia and Kurds, deserve to be represented. This is not just a moral imperative. It’s a security imperative. It is in America’s national interest to help build an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors, because a democratic, tolerant and accountable Iraq will be a peaceful regional partner, and such an Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Do you think that was naive?

SEN. EDWARDS: No, I think that had, had Saddam, who’s—had the war in Iraq been executed the way that it should have been executed, I think there would be a much greater likelihood of there being a democratic Iraq. I think we would still see at least some symptoms of what we’re seeing raging on the ground in Iraq right now. But no, I think there was some potential for a democracy in Iraq.[/quote]

But…but…but…

I thought, you guys have told me, time after tme after time, that the ONLY reason we went to war in Iraq were the WMDs…but here is John Edwards…in 2002…and HE KNEW that there was more…AND that it would take time!

If John Edwards KNEW all this AND got it from ‘former Clinton officials’ how is it that Bush lied and tricked everyone?

And

Did Tim Russert ‘sink’ John Edwards?

Out of the mouths of babes…

I thought, you guys have told me, time after tme after time, that the ONLY reason we went to war in Iraq were the WMDs…but here is John Edwards…in 2002…and HE KNEW that there was more…AND that it would take time!

If John Edwards KNEW all this AND got it from ‘former Clinton officials’ how is it that Bush lied and tricked everyone?


The Bush invasion went in for WMD's. They had no Plan after that. They though that Democracy would spring up overnight. The Dems, on the other hand, knew an invasion would require a plan and a long term committment. Gore spoke on his concern that Bush would get and get out. If Bush had gone in looking at a long term committment, and had planned for it, things MIGHT be different (who really knows). Edwards is addressing that fact.

The Dem position now is. If we'd gone in with a plan, it might have worked. If we'd carried out the plan, it might have worked. Bush and cronies screwed it up, so now it is too little too late.

It makes sense to me, although I differ from many Dems in believing that our presence in Iraq is crucial until some stability can be achieved, but that presence has to be advisors and support, not more troops to do what the Iraqis may not be able to do. I'm not convinced we can pull that off, but we need to try. A full pull out would be stupid!

Orangikan:

I’d love to say that you get close to seeing how things were and how they are. Really, I would. You write a reasonable post, no screaming and such. Maybe a brief review of things and I can ‘bring you over to the light’

The Bush invasion went in for WMD's.

Yes, and to free the Iraqi people…to bring Democracy to the Middle East. And to bring pressure on both Iran and the Saudis.

We attacked Iraq for a number of reasons of which WMD were just one. In no particular order:

The need to begin remaking the Middle East into Democracies, a freeing of the people.
Saddam’s refusal to prove his disarmament
Saddam’s known willingness to use WMD
Saddam’s known hatred for the US
Saddam’s growing contacts with Al Qaeda (much more is known about this now with the de-classification of documents captured in the war)
Iraq’s strategic location in the Middle East

Listening today, one would never guess that deposing Saddam Hussein used to be a bipartisan concern. From the moment the Clinton administration signed the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act, which codified “transition to democracy in Iraq” as official policy, to the October 2002 vote authorizing the president to use force against Iraq—a vote backed by 29 Democratic senators and 126 Democratic representatives—the necessity of regime change in Iraq was a rare point of agreement between the two parties.


They had no Plan after that. They though that Democracy would spring up overnight.

Not true…oh they had a plan, and you do get partial credit, for while they didn’t think “that Democracy would spring up overnight” the plan was not a great one. Of it’s faults, three stand out in the hindsight of today:

The ‘fading away’ of the Iraqi Army during the 1st phase of the campaign…that many (though not all) of these people would become a part of the first insurgency

The Iraqi people stealing everything in site…

That AQ would decide to make this a major battleground.

(So you know…I supported the invasion way back in 2002, and still do today. But I also recognize that past the 1st phase of the campaign, it has ot been handled well. Mistakes have been made. But… this is not the same ‘war’ that it was in 2003, or 2004, or 2005, or 2006…and that is a very key point… one most often lost on most people.)


The Dems, on the other hand, knew an invasion would require a plan and a long term committment. Gore spoke on his concern that Bush would get and get out. If Bush had gone in looking at a long term committment, and had planned for it, things MIGHT