Information found to date suggests that Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced -- if not entirely destroyed -- during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections. We are carefully examining dual-use, commercial chemical facilities to determine whether these were used or planned as alternative production sites.
Again, SH wanted the programs, but the UN was thwarting him. Pretty un-immenent. Lets focus our attention on Iraq instead of OBL or other terrorist organizations (exactly what Clarke was complaining about).
The UN? You gotta be kidding me. Saddam's own people were hurting the effort more than the UN. Shit the UN was FUNDING him with oil for "food".
Right.... Who am I supposed to believe, the one time hawk turn Iraq war detractor Dr. David Kay, or some guy on the net.... My vote is to believe what Kay says. And Clarke, and O'Neill.
Well you can look at what they found. Saddam actively pursuing weapons programs and waiting for the world to get bored with him. France and Russia were ready to fund Saddam's effort once the UN was off his back.
That stand off could only go one way. No more North Korea style stalemates in the post 9-11 era.
Again, SH wanted the programs, but the UN was thwarting him. Pretty un-immenent. Lets focus our attention on Iraq instead of OBL or other terrorist organizations (exactly what Clarke was complaining about).
I am going to say a little something on this subject, I know I am in for it, but:
Everyone, I mean everyone thought SH had weapons and programs. The UN did because they were conducting what? Say it with me. WEAPONS INSPECTIONS. They thought he had them.
The UN resolutions dictated that SH disarm in a verifiable manner. He did not. I think we all could agree about that.
If Saddam was bluffing to intimidate his enemies or his people or both, that is nobody's fault but SH's. There is no way to control that type of thing. If he actually thought that he could win against a full blown US military attack, that only proves he was delusional. Also note, who could control that? The fact was he WAS obstructing inspectors, breaking the ceasefire agreement, and supporting terrorists namely palestinian ones.
I don't know if I totally missed it or what, but when I heard Bush speak, it sounded like, to me, that risk was too great that this psycho, SH would pass off WMDs to terrorist groups.
Put yourself in GWB's shoes for a moment:
1. 9/11 happened. Those nuisance terror groups just became a real and visible threat. We found out in a real way that they were not just confined to overseas attacks. We also were just taught that these rag-tag band of thugs is a worldwide threat that was backed by rogue states. This war was now on our doorstep.
2. GWB already had this guy attempt to assassinate a president, no less than his father. I personally would use any power that I had to bring SH to justice if it was my father. So I see a good son in GWB. I may be way off in this one, but I don't see a problem with it, in light of everything else we know. Not to mention that SH has somehow avoided responsibility for so long.
3. SH has already used WMDs on no less than his own countrymen, no less. I don't think this can be stressed enough. Using them on an enemy that you are at war with is one thing, but inside his own country on people that are under his care. This frames his mindset very well. So using them on the "infidel" "devils" would not be to difficult a decision for him to make.
4. SH had already unprovoked attacked one of, if not more of our allies, namely Israel. This showed that he was willing to lash out against not only the US but our allies even if they had nothing to do with the US/Iraq conflict. Also goes to state of mind.
5. Terrorists had at least some degree of immunity in Iraq. In a big brother type state it is very unbelievable that SH did not know that they were there. And the new evidence showing that the 90's WTC bomber was put on the payroll, certainly points that he did. It is not unreasonable to think he may provide WMDs to them to assist. We know that Iraq provided training to terrorists.
6. SH vowed revenge for the first Gulf War. Given the other facts there is no reason not to believe he meant it or would follow through.
7. The UN felt he was hiding something. The US had every reason to believe that he was, since he would not fully disclose. Once again, how can you justify taking the chance that he did have them? As president that truly wanted to protect the US from this new threat, you can't.
Anti-war people here are saying bush was wrong to preemptively attack Iraq. I am not so sure. Because of the uncertainty of Iraq's capability to produce and deliver WMDs, coupled with the obvious risk of ignoring it, I contend that GWB had little choice but to rid the world of the threat, perceived or real.
If a man take you and your family hostage, makes it clear that he is willing to kill your whole family if need be, with a gun he has hidden behind his shirt, he is a legitimate threat even if his weapon is fake. There is no court in the free world that would hold you responsible for killing the guy if you got the chance. (minus the circuit court of appeals in San Fran.)
Just like that father that has a responsibility to protect his family from a threat real or perceived, GWB had that responsibility for a whole nation on his shoulders. Sometime if not many times preemptive action is what is needed.
If GWB had not gone and dealt with Iraq and an attack sponsored by them hit the US, the same people that are accusing the president of not doing enough about Al Qaeda before 9/11 would be doing the same thing about Iraq, not to mention the further damage to the economy. I think if you are honest you will agree.
[B]What if he DID destroy them? I'll reverse it. We contend that he didn't fully document the DESTRUCTION of the equipment, but we and Russia have also had accounting irregularites with regards to out own programs.
Definitely.
Quote:
Again, I agree to some extent. Rember, Islam is not some fly-by-night religion. It's been around for some time now, and has a sizeable following.
It's not that it's fly by night, it just seems to be having trouble adjusting---or maybe isn't built to make the jump---to a more individualistic culture. Christianity had it's reformation, which helped it away from the Romish model---I'm not certain Islam can "recompile" itself succesfully.
Quote:
Kudos. O'Neile had no real vested interest in releasing his documents for publication. He was old, and wealthy already.
I'll bet money O'Neil told Bush to shove it up his ass. (that might just be the thirtysomething in me)
On the Glue pict---I checked back a couple of times, and it wasn't until later that I noticed you post---no offense.
That photo had me in tears in and of itself.
Also, the Amercian Spectator had an interesting piece on GW before he was the favorite in 2000. It had some unflattering things to say about his days as a Texas Ranger owner, and how he drives a hard, hard bargain.
What if he DID destroy them? I'll reverse it. We contend that he didn't fully document the DESTRUCTION of the equipment, but we and Russia have also had accounting irregularites with regards to out own programs.
[/B]
The only problem is neither country has UN resolutions requiring full disclosure.
Your arguments are of course reasonable and realistic with regard to invading Iraq. I wouldn't bother with reason here, though.
The drum beat is growing. Clarke may be going down. The GOP is not going to come out and basically accuse him of lying under oath without being damn sure. This man has repeatedly contradicted himself. However, the Bush haters are so desperate for someone to confim their ridiculous image of Bush, they'll listen to any "insider".
When one adds up the facts, Clarke is not credible. Nether is O'Neill. Clarke stands to profit from his allegations, as does the network that aired the 60 minutes interview. It's a complete crock of shit. Clarke was on the watch when many terror attacks happened, and now....let me get this straight...it's Bush's fault? Please.
As for O'Niell, the man was FIRED. Hmmm, perhaps he has some motivation to trash Bush? And let me ask....what exactly does the Treasury Secretary have to do with converstations about Iraq and Terrorism? He may have been at cabinet meetings, but does anyone really think this man knew the score on everything concerning the WOT? I don't think so.
Edit: Of course we all remember this same drill was repeated with O'Neill? 60 minutes interviewed him too...and gee, he had a book being published by a Viacom subsidiary too. Hmmm.
And let me ask....what exactly does the Treasury Secretary have to do with converstations about Iraq and Terrorism?
That's a good question.
Quote:
Edit: Of course we all remember this same drill was repeated with O'Neill? 60 minutes interviewed him too...and gee, he had a book being published by a Viacom subsidiary too. Hmmm.
I don't think that CBS or any of the old-timey latency media outlets could pass up so much as a disgruntled houskeeper. I can see it now---a three-segment expose on Slippery Minutes---
"now are you saying, that on multiple occasions that the president DID NOT clean his plate before dessert?....
[the camera tightens in as the subject contemplates the question---you can see the bottom lip start to tremble, ending in a hoarse answer..]
"...yes, multiple times."
At any rate, O'Neil apologized to some extent over the quotes. I don't think he backpeddeled on what he said, but I do think he was "hurt" by how viciously they were used agianst W.
WorldNetDaily.com excavated on Tuesday a January 23, 1999, Washington Post article in which Clarke defended the Clinton administration's August 20, 1998, cruise-missile strike on the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. That mission avenged al Qaeda's demolition of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that August 7, which killed 224 individuals and injured more than 5,000. The Post quoted Clarke as "sure" that Iraqi experts there produced a powdered VX nerve gas component. According to the Post, Clarke "said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan."
I'm not sure that is a personal attack, since noone specific is mentioned, unless you are a self identified "Bush hater".
I can non-specifically say that Bush lovers are blind morons that all derseve to be dropped into a pile of sheep poop. That would be part of the new banning rules.
Kerry's in good shape with this though. If Clarke lied under oath, Kerry's on the right side of the law. If the Republicans can't prove Clarke lied under oath then Kerry gets to share in the limelight.
Besides, if the Republicans prove he lied, he was their man too. He lied for them. That's not good for them anyway.
WorldNetDaily.com excavated on Tuesday a January 23, 1999, Washington Post article in which Clarke defended the Clinton administration's August 20, 1998, cruise-missile strike on the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. That mission avenged al Qaeda's demolition of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that August 7, which killed 224 individuals and injured more than 5,000. The Post quoted Clarke as "sure" that Iraqi experts there produced a powdered VX nerve gas component. According to the Post, Clarke "said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan."
Thanks for the link. I'm not sure I agree completely with your interpretation of the article, though. From the article:
Quote:
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry says if the Bush administration can prove that former White House counter-terrorism advisor Richard Clarke lied under oath, then it should press charges.
During a television interview late Friday, Mr. Kerry challenged the administration to prove Mr. Clarke committed perjury.
I would not call that backing away, and definitely not backing away at light speed. I'd call that a challenge to put-up-or-shut-up.
Comments
Information found to date suggests that Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced -- if not entirely destroyed -- during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections. We are carefully examining dual-use, commercial chemical facilities to determine whether these were used or planned as alternative production sites.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/kay.report/
Again, SH wanted the programs, but the UN was thwarting him. Pretty un-immenent. Lets focus our attention on Iraq instead of OBL or other terrorist organizations (exactly what Clarke was complaining about).
Originally posted by faust9
Lets see what the Kay report says
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/kay.report/
Again, SH wanted the programs, but the UN was thwarting him. ...
The UN? You gotta be kidding me. Saddam's own people were hurting the effort more than the UN. Shit the UN was FUNDING him with oil for "food".
Originally posted by faust9
1441 wasn't authorization for war. If we had waited we could have gotten UN backing thus no 150BILLION debt paid for you and me.
Originally posted by Scott
The UN? You gotta be kidding me. Saddam's own people were hurting the effort more than the UN. Shit the UN was FUNDING him with oil for "food".
Right.... Who am I supposed to believe, the one time hawk turn Iraq war detractor Dr. David Kay, or some guy on the net.... My vote is to believe what Kay says. And Clarke, and O'Neill.
That stand off could only go one way. No more North Korea style stalemates in the post 9-11 era.
Originally posted by faust9
Lets see what the Kay report says
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/kay.report/
Again, SH wanted the programs, but the UN was thwarting him. Pretty un-immenent. Lets focus our attention on Iraq instead of OBL or other terrorist organizations (exactly what Clarke was complaining about).
I am going to say a little something on this subject, I know I am in for it, but:
Everyone, I mean everyone thought SH had weapons and programs. The UN did because they were conducting what? Say it with me. WEAPONS INSPECTIONS. They thought he had them.
The UN resolutions dictated that SH disarm in a verifiable manner. He did not. I think we all could agree about that.
If Saddam was bluffing to intimidate his enemies or his people or both, that is nobody's fault but SH's. There is no way to control that type of thing. If he actually thought that he could win against a full blown US military attack, that only proves he was delusional. Also note, who could control that? The fact was he WAS obstructing inspectors, breaking the ceasefire agreement, and supporting terrorists namely palestinian ones.
I don't know if I totally missed it or what, but when I heard Bush speak, it sounded like, to me, that risk was too great that this psycho, SH would pass off WMDs to terrorist groups.
Put yourself in GWB's shoes for a moment:
1. 9/11 happened. Those nuisance terror groups just became a real and visible threat. We found out in a real way that they were not just confined to overseas attacks. We also were just taught that these rag-tag band of thugs is a worldwide threat that was backed by rogue states. This war was now on our doorstep.
2. GWB already had this guy attempt to assassinate a president, no less than his father. I personally would use any power that I had to bring SH to justice if it was my father. So I see a good son in GWB. I may be way off in this one, but I don't see a problem with it, in light of everything else we know. Not to mention that SH has somehow avoided responsibility for so long.
3. SH has already used WMDs on no less than his own countrymen, no less. I don't think this can be stressed enough. Using them on an enemy that you are at war with is one thing, but inside his own country on people that are under his care. This frames his mindset very well. So using them on the "infidel" "devils" would not be to difficult a decision for him to make.
4. SH had already unprovoked attacked one of, if not more of our allies, namely Israel. This showed that he was willing to lash out against not only the US but our allies even if they had nothing to do with the US/Iraq conflict. Also goes to state of mind.
5. Terrorists had at least some degree of immunity in Iraq. In a big brother type state it is very unbelievable that SH did not know that they were there. And the new evidence showing that the 90's WTC bomber was put on the payroll, certainly points that he did. It is not unreasonable to think he may provide WMDs to them to assist. We know that Iraq provided training to terrorists.
6. SH vowed revenge for the first Gulf War. Given the other facts there is no reason not to believe he meant it or would follow through.
7. The UN felt he was hiding something. The US had every reason to believe that he was, since he would not fully disclose. Once again, how can you justify taking the chance that he did have them? As president that truly wanted to protect the US from this new threat, you can't.
Anti-war people here are saying bush was wrong to preemptively attack Iraq. I am not so sure. Because of the uncertainty of Iraq's capability to produce and deliver WMDs, coupled with the obvious risk of ignoring it, I contend that GWB had little choice but to rid the world of the threat, perceived or real.
If a man take you and your family hostage, makes it clear that he is willing to kill your whole family if need be, with a gun he has hidden behind his shirt, he is a legitimate threat even if his weapon is fake. There is no court in the free world that would hold you responsible for killing the guy if you got the chance. (minus the circuit court of appeals in San Fran.)
Just like that father that has a responsibility to protect his family from a threat real or perceived, GWB had that responsibility for a whole nation on his shoulders. Sometime if not many times preemptive action is what is needed.
If GWB had not gone and dealt with Iraq and an attack sponsored by them hit the US, the same people that are accusing the president of not doing enough about Al Qaeda before 9/11 would be doing the same thing about Iraq, not to mention the further damage to the economy. I think if you are honest you will agree.
Originally posted by faust9
[B]What if he DID destroy them? I'll reverse it. We contend that he didn't fully document the DESTRUCTION of the equipment, but we and Russia have also had accounting irregularites with regards to out own programs.
Definitely.
Again, I agree to some extent. Rember, Islam is not some fly-by-night religion. It's been around for some time now, and has a sizeable following.
It's not that it's fly by night, it just seems to be having trouble adjusting---or maybe isn't built to make the jump---to a more individualistic culture. Christianity had it's reformation, which helped it away from the Romish model---I'm not certain Islam can "recompile" itself succesfully.
Kudos. O'Neile had no real vested interest in releasing his documents for publication. He was old, and wealthy already.
I'll bet money O'Neil told Bush to shove it up his ass. (that might just be the thirtysomething in me)
On the Glue pict---I checked back a couple of times, and it wasn't until later that I noticed you post---no offense.
That photo had me in tears in and of itself.
Also, the Amercian Spectator had an interesting piece on GW before he was the favorite in 2000. It had some unflattering things to say about his days as a Texas Ranger owner, and how he drives a hard, hard bargain.
What if he DID destroy them? I'll reverse it. We contend that he didn't fully document the DESTRUCTION of the equipment, but we and Russia have also had accounting irregularites with regards to out own programs.
[/B]
The only problem is neither country has UN resolutions requiring full disclosure.
Your arguments are of course reasonable and realistic with regard to invading Iraq. I wouldn't bother with reason here, though.
The drum beat is growing. Clarke may be going down. The GOP is not going to come out and basically accuse him of lying under oath without being damn sure. This man has repeatedly contradicted himself. However, the Bush haters are so desperate for someone to confim their ridiculous image of Bush, they'll listen to any "insider".
When one adds up the facts, Clarke is not credible. Nether is O'Neill. Clarke stands to profit from his allegations, as does the network that aired the 60 minutes interview. It's a complete crock of shit. Clarke was on the watch when many terror attacks happened, and now....let me get this straight...it's Bush's fault? Please.
As for O'Niell, the man was FIRED. Hmmm, perhaps he has some motivation to trash Bush? And let me ask....what exactly does the Treasury Secretary have to do with converstations about Iraq and Terrorism? He may have been at cabinet meetings, but does anyone really think this man knew the score on everything concerning the WOT? I don't think so.
Edit: Of course we all remember this same drill was repeated with O'Neill? 60 minutes interviewed him too...and gee, he had a book being published by a Viacom subsidiary too. Hmmm.
Originally posted by SDW2001
And let me ask....what exactly does the Treasury Secretary have to do with converstations about Iraq and Terrorism?
That's a good question.
Edit: Of course we all remember this same drill was repeated with O'Neill? 60 minutes interviewed him too...and gee, he had a book being published by a Viacom subsidiary too. Hmmm.
I don't think that CBS or any of the old-timey latency media outlets could pass up so much as a disgruntled houskeeper. I can see it now---a three-segment expose on Slippery Minutes---
"now are you saying, that on multiple occasions that the president DID NOT clean his plate before dessert?....
[the camera tightens in as the subject contemplates the question---you can see the bottom lip start to tremble, ending in a hoarse answer..]
"...yes, multiple times."
At any rate, O'Neil apologized to some extent over the quotes. I don't think he backpeddeled on what he said, but I do think he was "hurt" by how viciously they were used agianst W.
Originally posted by SDW2001
However, the Bush haters are so desperate for someone to confim their ridiculous image of Bush, they'll listen to any "insider".
Aren't personal attacks like this part of the new three day ban?
Originally posted by bunge
Aren't personal attacks like this part of the new three day ban?
That wasn't personal.
Originally posted by bunge
Aren't personal attacks like this part of the new three day ban?
I'm not sure that is a personal attack, since noone specific is mentioned, unless you are a self identified "Bush hater".
WorldNetDaily.com excavated on Tuesday a January 23, 1999, Washington Post article in which Clarke defended the Clinton administration's August 20, 1998, cruise-missile strike on the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. That mission avenged al Qaeda's demolition of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that August 7, which killed 224 individuals and injured more than 5,000. The Post quoted Clarke as "sure" that Iraqi experts there produced a powdered VX nerve gas component. According to the Post, Clarke "said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan."
Seems it goes back even further.
This does not look good for clarke.
Seems kerry is backing away at light speed.
http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?o...3424CF47443FDE
Originally posted by NaplesX
I'm not sure that is a personal attack, since noone specific is mentioned, unless you are a self identified "Bush hater".
I can non-specifically say that Bush lovers are blind morons that all derseve to be dropped into a pile of sheep poop. That would be part of the new banning rules.
Originally posted by NaplesX
This does not look good for clarke.
Seems kerry is backing away at light speed.
Kerry's in good shape with this though. If Clarke lied under oath, Kerry's on the right side of the law. If the Republicans can't prove Clarke lied under oath then Kerry gets to share in the limelight.
Besides, if the Republicans prove he lied, he was their man too. He lied for them. That's not good for them anyway.
Originally posted by bunge
Besides, if the Republicans prove he lied, he was their man too. He lied for them. That's not good for them anyway.
Excellent point.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I found this and I am digging for more info:
WorldNetDaily.com excavated on Tuesday a January 23, 1999, Washington Post article in which Clarke defended the Clinton administration's August 20, 1998, cruise-missile strike on the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. That mission avenged al Qaeda's demolition of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that August 7, which killed 224 individuals and injured more than 5,000. The Post quoted Clarke as "sure" that Iraqi experts there produced a powdered VX nerve gas component. According to the Post, Clarke "said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan."
Seems it goes back even further.
This does not look good for clarke.
Seems kerry is backing away at light speed.
http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?o...3424CF47443FDE [/B]
Thanks for the link. I'm not sure I agree completely with your interpretation of the article, though. From the article:
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry says if the Bush administration can prove that former White House counter-terrorism advisor Richard Clarke lied under oath, then it should press charges.
During a television interview late Friday, Mr. Kerry challenged the administration to prove Mr. Clarke committed perjury.
I would not call that backing away, and definitely not backing away at light speed. I'd call that a challenge to put-up-or-shut-up.