I think it would have been laughed at if you had speculated on it a year ago...ok, I more than think, I know from personal experience ( ask Manny )...but we are in a new phase now, one where the jingos are out of the closet and walking proudly down Main Street to the accompanying pomp and ceremony of the Star Spangled Band. Right or wrong ( my position is obviously clear ) there are those who embrace the idea of America as the world's power to such an extent that they are willing to happily overlook anything which marrs the picture. If our governemnt tells the UN that we should invade because of intel reports which turn out to be unture, just call it bad intel and overlook it, there are other reasons why the war's ok, and who cares about bad intel. If the government says there's a connection to 9-11, there must be...we have intel! Who cares if anyone has ever seen the intel, and don't dare mention other intel errors! If the government says there are WMD, who cares about proof, let's go in! Their word is good enough for me! And if they later say that they were misrepresenting the 'emphasis' of WMD after more than a month turns up squat, who cares, it was probably just for the foreigners anyways, and besides there were other reasons...how do I know? The government says so!
Re-read the friggin' article please. It never states that the WMD thing was bogus, it just says there were additional reasons for what happened. It's not a sham, lie or whatever according to the article. The thread title is about as misleading as some of the crap the Information Minister of Iraq was spewing during the war. Geeze.......... CHOMP at that BIT fellas!
TEXANS ARE QUITTING...CLOSING UP SHOP...NO MORE FOOTBALL! (actually, they just traded a fourth-round pick to NE, but this sounds so much more interesting)
Typing, or whatever I do that passes for typing, has never been a strong suit. No one, and I really believe that, no one is any happier that edit is back than I am. Might be a little late now that you've captured my hunt and peck errors for all posterity...Wanna make a deal? I go back and edit, you do the same? No? Damn...
LOL. I agree. This thread is a waste of bandwidth. There were always multiple reasons to remove Saddam was in power. The Bush-bashers demanded that we garner support from American citizens and the world community, so President Bush and his people made their case. When they prioritized the reasons to remove Saddam, they told us the truth when the immediate threat from Iraq was emphasized as the number one reason to take action. Iraq had both a relationship with Al Queda, and an active WMD program. This deadly combination was an immediate threat to the American people. These are not just claims, but verifiable facts.
Absolutely. We found 11 bio/chem labs buried for retrieval at a later date. Iraqi scientists have told coalition forces that in the days leading up to the war, biological and chemical weapons material was destroyed. The stories are out there- go read them. Also, the British were told by Iraqi soldiers that an Al Queda cell was fighting with Saddam's few loyal troops. They since have found letters and reports in an Iraqi Intelligence office definitely linking Al Queda to Iraq. Remember, over the past 5 years, there have been several first hand accounts from the BBC and other sources that Al Queda and Iraq had a relationship.
You've certainly proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt. The US needed its 10 year annual military exercise to test new technologies and provide combat experience for its next generation of leaders. Added bonus: military bases in Iraq in case Saudi Arabia gives us trouble, contracts for US firms to rebuild etc., and OIL.
how do you know this? did you read this in a article, like the one this thread is about? if so, why do you believe those article's and you do not believe this one? maybe because those articles support you opinion, and this one doesn't
Sure here's one lie from Condi Rice. This isn't just bad intel, it's Rice LYING! http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35360-2003Jan23?language=printer Bush cited the aluminum tubes in his speech before the U.N. General Assembly and in documents presented to U.N. leaders. Vice President Cheney and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice both repeated the claim, with Rice describing the tubes as "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." It was by far the most prominent, detailed assertion by the White House of recent Iraqi efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. But according to government officials and weapons experts, the claim now appears to be seriously in doubt. After weeks of investigation, U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq are increasingly confident that the aluminum tubes were never meant for enriching uranium, according to officials familiar with the inspection process. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N.-chartered nuclear watchdog, reported in a Jan. 8 preliminary assessment that the tubes were "not directly suitable" for uranium enrichment but were "consistent" with making ordinary artillery rockets -- a finding that meshed with Iraq's official explanation for the tubes. New evidence supporting that conclusion has been gathered in recent weeks and will be presented to the U.N. Security Council in a report due to be released on Monday, the officials said. Moreover, there were clues from the beginning that should have raised doubts about claims that the tubes were part of a secret Iraqi nuclear weapons program, according to U.S. and international experts on uranium enrichment. The quantity and specifications of the tubes -- narrow, silver cylinders measuring 81 millimeters in diameter and about a meter in length -- made them ill-suited to enrich uranium without extensive modification, the experts said. But they are a perfect fit for a well-documented 81mm conventional rocket program in place for two decades. Iraq imported the same aluminum tubes for rockets in the 1980s. The new tubes it tried to purchase actually bear an inscription that includes the word "rocket," according to one official who examined them. "It may be technically possible that the tubes could be used to enrich uranium," said one expert familiar with the investigation of Iraq's attempted acquisition. "But you'd have to believe that Iraq deliberately ordered the wrong stock and intended to spend a great deal of time and money reworking each piece." For Rice to say that they really only had one use, clearly isn't true. The administration LIED. There are no euphamisms for it, like relying on bad intel, it was plain and simple a lie. Here's another LIE. This one comes from Bush's own mouth. Bush claimed that there was a report that Iraq was 6 months away from nuclear weapons. The report never existed. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020927-500715.htm The International Atomic Energy Agency says that a report cited by President Bush as evidence that Iraq in 1998 was "six months away" from developing a nuclear weapon does not exist. Top Stories "There's never been a report like that issued from this agency," Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA's chief spokesman, said yesterday in a telephone interview from the agency's headquarters in Vienna, Austria. "We've never put a time frame on how long it might take Iraq to construct a nuclear weapon in 1998," said the spokesman of the agency charged with assessing Iraq's nuclear capability for the United Nations. The reports about Iraq trying to buy plutonium that were forged may be bad intel. It's certainly not good to hand over forged documents as evidence to the UN but even if we give the administration the benefit of the doubt on that one, we have two other examples of them lying to make their case.
http://msnbc.com/news/905925.asp?0cv=CB10 Now that Iraq is secured, has the pull out from Saudi Arabia already started?
There are roughly two ways to look at it: (a) After careful analysis and deliberation and objective weighing of the evidence, the US felt that Iraq presented such an imminent threat that it had to invade and attack Iraq and remove the Saddam regime. In other words, the evidence, facts, and analysis of the situation in Iraq led to the conclusion that the US had to attack, invade and depose the Iraqi regime at this very moment. (b) The US, for various strategic and geopolitical reasons, wanted to remove Saddam's regime. In order to accomplish this goal, it had to present arguments and evidence, however uncredible or flimsy, to justify this action. The Bush regime had determined, beforehand, that Saddam's regime needed to be deposed and replaced. In order words, the evidence, facts and analysis of the situation in Iraq and arguments in favor of action was a pretext for enabling an action which the Bush regime wanted accomplished. This article seems to suggest that (b) is the more correct and accurate way of looking at it.
I would like to see if less than half supported the war before the WMD argument began. This could be the important point. Although, I still think the administration did believe there was a WMD threat, just not the extent that they said. In other words they really exaggerated. But don't forget that we are coming up with chemical and biological weapons and WMD plans, and we are still searching. Would it be lying if the Bush emphasized a threat that truly was there, but on the other hand was waging war principally to democratize Iraq and fight terrorism? You make good points. However, I would not say the WMD argument has come up "empty" since we are finding some evidence. Regarding the international community, it is hard to believe the idea that they would have been behind us had we proven the WMD threat. In fact, I believe the rest of the world did believe Iraq was building WMD, hence the UN resolutions and the insistence of having inspectors enter Iraq. The problem is the UN did not see that Iraq was a threat as strongly as the US did. They simply did not have the same interests, so of course they disagreed. I think your presentation here is unbalanced. Which perspective is more accurate- the side that said that Iraq is building WMD, was a threat to its neighbors, has connection to terrorists, and should be democratized. But this side overstated the threat of WMD. Or the side that stated that inspectors could contain Iraq and Saddam Hussein, that the US was doing this for economic gain, and that the status quo was the best choice?
Try reading a couple of recent essay books/pamphlets by Gore Vidal. I try not to believe everything I read or hear, but if you want to be dismayed by this administration, well, read those. I forget the names. Go to Barnes and Noble, read'em for free. With Afghanistan, we gained a valuable natural gas pipeline for Condoleeza Rice's old oil company. With Iraq? Much the same idea. But read about how we launched no jet fighters the morning of 9/11 to shoot down planes that had deviated from their flight plans. Fighters are supposed to launch within 20 minutes of this circumstance. Our fighters stayed on the ground until well after all planes had hit their targets (except the PA-crash plane). And there has been no credible reason given for this. What did GWB do when notified of the first plane hitting the first tower? Continued to read to the kiddies at a school. We also might have prodded Al Qaeda into the 9/11 attack. No, we didn't train them to fly into the World Trade centers, we didn't teach them ideology, I'm not saying it could never have happened, but we might have given them a reason to go.
are you even remotely suggesting that the administration LET 9/11 happen. please understand what you're accusing these people of. i can't imagine disliking a politician so much that i would jump to this assumption. continued to read to the kids at school? when the second plane hit, he was immediately notified, and addressed the nation from that school. man...if you honestly believe this...i feel sorry for you.
I would like to nominate the above post as the single stupidest piece of drivel I have ever read on a BBS that was not run by the American Nazi Party. Congrats!!
This conflict above all was meant to remove the threat of Iraq's WMD cache that on numeruous occasions this administration led us to believe would fall into the hands of terrorists. This conflict was justified by this administration because they believed there was a threat to national security. Now I have read and viewed plenty of articles, sources and even listened to former weapons inspectors as well as intelligence analysts that have given me reason to support such a war to remove a threat. But if this administration is going to lazily claim they overemphasized the threat after instigating such concern from the American public then how can anyone support them? We weren't sold a war that was merely provoked to scare governements and terrorists alike. We were sold a war that was meant to extinguish a threat to the American people. Of all the mounting evidence of Al Qaeda ties and WMD this is what they give us? "Er..... we didn't lie we emphasized the threat." Wha?? I hope I'm not overreacting. I believe its premature now to start asking for WMD. Just as well people are asking for security guards of the few troops we have in the country. A country the size of California will relinquish its weapons slowly but surely. But for this administration to start claiming this was a war provoked to scare people sure as hell doesn't qualify as a just war. Don't get me wrong I am very happy people are free in that country. Nothing can describe how I felt when these people were bringing down statues of their former dictator. But we have to look back because it wasn't easy for the 600 casualties we took. Men died and took wounds for this conflict. They didn't serve in this conflict merely to scare adversaries of this country but to extinguish a threat to this country. If these "officials" quoted by ABC are credible then they have basically lowered the criterion for this war to be justified. That is unacceptable. ROXTXIA - I believe the reason Bush continued reading to the classroom was because it sounded like an accident originally. Thats what it looked like to me after the first plane went into the building.
