What Has Gone Right In Iraq

[blueridge71]

How convenient that 350 driver forgets the large group that believe that he had weapons prior to the war.

Among those who professed that he didn't:

The French
American Liberals
The Germans

I've got to disagree. I don't even remember those three groups claiming that Saddam was clean. They were only saying that we should let inspectors find them.

Bush lied to the American people, bottom line and he needs to be held accountable for his actions.

Okay, this is a myth. It is a charge that is being bandied about with no basis whatsoever. If George Bush lied, then so did the following people:


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq
the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction
and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom
line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our
purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the
threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens
there matters a great deal here. For the risks that
the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons against us or our
allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again,
as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser,
Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and
consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to
take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air
and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to
end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl
Levin, Tom Daschle, John
Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of
weapons of mass destruction technology which is a
threat to countries in the region and he has made a
mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building
weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his
cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of St ate, Nov.
10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has
invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate
that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status.
In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery
systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit
missile program to develop longer-range missiles that
will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham
(D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein
is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of
the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United
Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction
and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of
biological and chemical weapons throughout his
country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has
proven impossible to deter and we should assume that
it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is
seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October
of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains
some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons,
and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare
capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is
seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United
States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to
disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly
arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is
a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is
working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and
will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five
years ... We also should remember we have always
underestimated the progress Saddam has made in
development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of
the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution
that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear
capacity. This he has
refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left,
intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has
worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and
sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam
Hussein will
continue to increase his capacity to wage biological
and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop
nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling
evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a
number of years, a developing capacity for the
production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein.
He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an
oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly
grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating
America's response to his continued deceit and his
consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of
mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

 

[Typhoon1244]

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq
the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction
and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom
line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our
purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the
threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Tell me, blueridge, where is the lie in these two statements? In both cases, Clinton spoke of the importance of preventing Saddam from acquiring these weapons.

That's a far cry from insisting that Saddam actually had the weapons. I don't deny Clinton's a liar. All presidents are, to a certain degree. But let's not take 'mission statements' like the two above and try to twist them into lies.

 

[ch47fe]

Simple view for me and bottom line.

Regardless of your party affiliation I do not want to deal with more terrorist action here in the US. I feel if we do not deal with it at the source in some manner we will not be able to go to a mall or park without living in fear of an attack.

I realize it is a possibility for an attack today but I feel it is less likely if we kill the ba$tards over there instaed of letting them migrate over here to cause more trouble.

For those that believe non military actions will do more good(sanctions, buying friends with US money, trade deals) in the long run you must have gotten your A$$ kicked often when you gave your bully the lunch money everytime.

Terrorists are playing a big game of life and death bully. Whether they are Muslim, Irish Catholic or Christians every religion understands that dead is dead and you will find out what your religious beliefs are all about after you are DEAD.

I personally think it's a bad policy to make deals and pacify murderers to not create havok with us.

Casualties happen in war but the service of our soldiers is held in honor in my heart. It could be me or you once drafted(will never happen again)with blown off limbs, suffering severe burns, or dead leaving wifes and children behind but this fight is not unjust by my view. I thank those brave enough to defend me and my family on their watch. Every soldier in any service VOLUNTEERED to go where ANY ELECTED PRESIDENT decides to send them not just who they like that term.

God bless the daily wounded or KIA in the middle east and let's hope they can come home alive.

For me pulling out now is a bad idea as the Spanish government has already sent messages to terrorists around the world a message of if you $hit on me hard enough I will submit to your desires. God help us friends if we ever decide to accept this attitude in our country. At some point you have to stand up and protect yourself.

That's a simplistic view in my opinion. It's not all that complicated.

I agree with huey pilot on the invasions occupations of Japan and Germany. It worked out there but they weren't radical muslims either.

I look forward to any reasonable response.

 

[countbat]

The gas price at my local Wall-Mart went up. I am outraged. I want my cheap gas and a bigger SUV. I don't give a @#$#@ about all that Irak staff. OPEC doesn't do their job????? We have Irak, 10 more to go.
They want peace???? They will have all the peace they want when the oil will be gone. I go to buy another SUV and better the gas price will go down.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Re: Simple view for me and bottom line.

Every soldier in any service VOLUNTEERED to go where ANY ELECTED PRESIDENT decides to send...

What about Supreme Court APPOINTED PRESIDENTS?

(Relax, I'm not one of those Gore nuts. I think there's definitely a 60% chance our last election was valid.)

 

[Tim47SIP]

Typh

Tell me, blueridge, where is the lie in these two statements? In both cases, Clinton spoke of the importance of preventing Saddam from acquiring these weapons.



There is no lie at all. As blue provides, those individuals also thought he had WMD.

That's a far cry from insisting that Saddam actually had the weapons. I don't deny Clinton's a liar. All presidents are, to a certain degree. But let's not take 'mission statements' like the two above and try to twist them into lies.

I think if you look up the word "deminish" you might find that you have to have something to deminish it. Blue did not spin anything here, Clinton stated these which he thought were facts. Mission statements? Is a mission statement different from a regular statement?

 

[Typhoon1244]

Tim, let's be fair. Read Clinton's statements. In the first, he says we must deny Saddam the ability to build W'sMD. In the second, he says we must diminish (not "deminish" ) the threat posed by Saddam's WMD program. (Read the whole sentence, Tim.) In neither statement does he say Saddam already has these weapons.

As jarhead implied in our talk about Korea, if W's administration really believed Saddam had these weapons, we wouldn't have rushed headlong into Iraq. Some finesse would have been required to take out those weapons before they could be used against our forces.

(It's just possible that such a mission was indeed carried out and us Joe Blows don't know about it. Maybe--just maybe--there's no evidence of W'sMD because we already blew them up with Tomahawks...or covert operatives.)

In any case, my point is that if you're going to call someone a liar, you should reference an actual lie, don't you think?

 

[Typhoon1244]

Re: Typh

Mission statements? Is a mission statement different from a regular statement?

Sorry for confusing you. I'll explain:

"Mission statement" is more specific than "statement." It's simply a way of specifying a goal. While a "mission statement" is a "statement," a "statement" isn't always a "mission statement." Just as while a DC-6 is an airplane, an airplane isn't necessarily a DC-6. Follow?

Let me know if there're any other language issues I can help with...

 

[Tim47SIP]

Thyph

"Mission statement" is more specific than "statement." It's simply a way of specifying a goal. While a "mission statement" is a "statement," a "statement" isn't always a "mission statement." Just as while a DC-6 is an airplane, an airplane isn't necessarily a DC-6. Follow?
Wow!

Being in (or just recently retired) from the mil, a mission statement that I am used to is a little more complicated than the statement Clinton made.

In the second, he says we must diminish (not "deminish" ) the threat posed by Saddam's WMD program. (Read the whole sentence, Tim.) In neither statement does he say Saddam already has these weapons.

I thought I did

OK, you got me if you are trying to state that the term program is not the same as actually having them. I think you are splitting hairs here, as that does sound like debating the definition of "is". That to me is one in the same whether the actual weapon has been completed or is still in the procurement phase. Makes no difference when we are trying to alter the end result of any WMD program that he may have had or may have been working on. One other word that is very important in this sentence is the word "threat". This implies that the "program" was a threat and had to be dealt with. So by using his words exactly as they are written, he implies that there were WMD's or SH was very close to completion of WMD. I know this thinking will make you again bring up NK. But there are some checks and ballances there. Iraq was a different story.

I never said that I could spell! So you also got me there.

 

[fugghedabowdit]

I don't buy this argument that, "at least were killing them over there, before they can get here." Most of who we're fighting at this point are disenchanted locals who are getting all gussied up by a few radical Clerics and too much time off. If we had stayed out of Iraq these people would not be finding passage to the US. If you want to "get them before they get here", you'd be better off invading Saudi Arabia, where 15 of the 9-11 terrorists came from.

All in all, were creating more terrorists than we're killing right now. Remember, Osama Bin Ladens hatred of America is an unfortunate by-product of our occupation of Saudi Arabia during Gulf War I. A war that was much more popular in the region and the world. This is a complicated situation with no easy answers, but I feel we will be dealing with negative consequences of this for a long time.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Re: Thyph

...you got me if you are trying to state that the term program is not the same as actually having them. That to me is one in the same whether the actual weapon has been completed or is still in the procurement phase.

Remember those French clowns who came out and announced they'd produced the first human clone? They had a program intended to pursue human cloning, and apparently decided that was close enough to announce success.

Interesting that you think the same way those folks do.

At any rate, neither of the statements made by Clinton and cited in this thread are lies. The Nazis had a nuclear program too...that doesn't mean they were close to actually producing a weapon.

Now--and this is important--this has nothing to do with whether or not I think Saddam needed to be dealt with. He did! But let's try and remember who was lying about what!

 

[blueridge71]

Typhoon,

I agree with Tim that you are splitting hairs.

If Saddam had a WMD program then he had the capacity to produce weapons and there is no way that we could know in real time when he was producing them. The safe course of action is to deny him the ability to produce weapons, which we did.

Now a question for you:

Where is the evidence that Bush lied?

Assuming that the WMDs are not there, that is still not evidence of a lie. It would be evidence of incorrect intelligence, but to prove a lie you have to show an intent to deceive. If that evidence exists, it has not been presented.

 

[Typhoon1244]

I agree with Tim that you are splitting hairs.

Well, you're both wrong.

Where is the evidence that Bush lied? Assuming that the WMDs are not there, that is still not evidence of a lie. It would be evidence of incorrect intelligence...

Granted. And as I stated previously, it's possible that the problem was dealt with early in the war and that's why there's no evidence of W'sMD today.

But since integrity and honesty are rare commodities in any Bush administration, it's difficult to tell what W is lying about and what he's being straight about. Consider this remark made by the President during an interview with CNN:

Well, Jordan , you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

This is an interesting statement considering that (1) there was no live televised footage of the first impact, and (2) there was no T.V. in the classroom. Why would he lie about something like this?

I'm not sure even he knows.

 

[TonyC]

No, just frustrated. You're an intelligent guy--and an airline pilot, no less--who likes George Bush. That's like a fitness buff that only eats at McDonalds.

I don't get it.

Again, I must caution you to read more carefully. I did not even mention a political party, or political persuasion, or a political preference when I questioned the flaw in your logic. I'm content to deal with facts. Are you?

 

[TonyC]

Thanks, Tony,

Was a great evening. Loved the stories about the Paris air show. Folks, if I ever go to Paris for the air show, I'm going with TonyC. THIS man really knows how to work the perks. I'm talking about front row seats on the flightline, unlimited free booze. Musta kissed the Blarney stone somewhere along the way!

It was my pleasure, A Squared. It's not that often I get to hear stories about the older Douglas products. It made watching the C-47 and DC-6 takeoff the next afternoon that more interesting. It's hard to believe those things had the required climb gradient!

Next time you'll have to twist Mar's arm and get him in there, too.