I'm feeling pretty timely with my remarks: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...=/nm/20030127/ts_nm/iraq_powell_evidence_dc_4
Major I think you should just bow to your own logic. They are not just "incompetent on this issue of actually justifying the war". They have refused to "present any evidence" because they don't have it and the CIA can only be pushed so far in the direction of manufacturing it. I think the White House has been incompetent in the battle of public opinion, but I have no doubt that Iraq is trying to develop WMD and that we have evidence of such. I don't believe we have any evidence of an Al Queda link - I don't believe we need one though. Make the case that Iraq is violating UN resolutions and is a threat to Middle East stability. <I>Prove</I> that they have or are developing WMD capabilities (we supposedly have the evidence). As far as protecting sources inside the Iraqi government - if it's human intelligence, get those people out of there. We're going to obliterate said government anyway - why do we need those sources anymore? The problem I have is that I believe that the war needs backing from the UN and the American people, and the White House's incompetence is seriously hurting our chances of getting that backing. A solo war is going to be a disaster in terms of our standing with the rest of the world, and as much as many people would like to believe we don't need the rest of the world, I think those people are badly misinformed.
Powell told the Italian newspaper that war was not around the corner but that Washington was losing its patience. "I repeat, the war is not on for tomorrow but the longer we wait, the greater the possibility that this dictator, who has clear links to the al Qaeda terrorist group, will move his weapons or technology elsewhere," he was quoted as saying. How do you see this as dodging the issue?
<B>I'm feeling pretty timely with my remarks: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...l_evidence_dc_4 </B> It's about time ... The big question afterwords will be whether its too little, too late in terms of gaining back international support.
NJ: When the search function is back up, you can confirm that I for one have never suggested the war was for oil. I don't pretend to know what goes on in the most secretive White House in this nation's history. What bugs me about your take is the idea that the anti-war crowd needs to prove sinister motive. You (and the most arrogant White House in this nation's history) have it backwards. As has been said by so many people from so many countries and political persuasions, it is utter folly to go to war without making the case to the world community and to the American people. The onus is on Bush, not the protesters. If they're backing off the 9/11 or Al Qaida link (and they are), then show proof of nukes. If they're backing off that, show proof of capability (and, ideally, intent) of attacking the US. They've done none of this. It's not my job as a patriot and a US citizen to prove sinister motivation -- it IS my job as a patriot and US citizen to demand credible arguments for war and, in the absence of such arguments, to oppose it.
"I repeat, the war is not on for tomorrow but the longer we wait, the greater the possibility that this dictator, who has clear links to the al Qaeda terrorist group, will move his weapons or technology elsewhere," he was quoted as saying. I hadn't seen this quote. Now I want to see that evidence too. If this was what Fleisher was talking about, maybe he wasn't avoiding it - I don't know the context. I assumed it was like his daily questions that he answers that way ("we have information - i'm not saying what, we'll share info when we feel necessary, etc").
I didn't mean you...it just looked that way since I posted right after you did. Obviously you won't believe Powell or the White House if they tell you that there are links unless they show you concrete proof. Personally, I don;t have anything else to go on.....therefore, if Powell says it, I'll believe him
A agree. I also see a HUGE balancing act the administration will have to follow. How much intelligence do they provide? What is enough to convince people? I don't think they can lay down all of their cards, so what is enough? What is too much? Depsite what others on this board feel, there is a very valid reason for not showing too much of your hand. Another thing I didn't mention (this is just another hunch of mine). When they do lay their cards on the table, I think the war will start within 24 hours. At least precision strikes on the targets in question.
A good article by Jack Kemp a proiminent Republican and member of Reagan's cabinet about the changing reasons given for the war by the adminstration. ************* January 22, 2003 Give Iraq a list President Bush has played his cards well on Iraq, and we are so close to victory that it would be a tragedy if a few war hawks pushed us into an unnecessary invasion and occupation of an Arab country. Much of the world believes the United States will go to war with Iraq no matter what Iraq does, no matter what the U.N. inspectors find. They believe this because they think, in the words of columnist Georgie Anne Geyer, that invading Iraq is not about weapons of mass destruction but rather "it's the first step in remaking the entire Middle East." I worry that the United States would be viewed as the aggressor if it undertakes military action in Iraq without providing clear and convincing evidence that Iraq has a nuclear weapons program or retains significant chemical and biological weapons stocks that threaten its neighbors. Other countries question America's motives because the rationale for war appears to be in constant flux. During the Clinton administration, we said Saddam Hussein had to go before there could be lasting peace and normalization with Iraq, and we squeezed Iraq with aerial bombing and economic sanctions. After Bush assumed office, with Colin Powell as secretary of state, U.S. policy subtly, and wisely, shifted. Powell suggested that peace was possible and the sanctions could be lifted, but only if Hussein completely disarmed himself of weapons of mass destruction. Other high-level U.S. officials let it be known that they, nevertheless, believed war with Iraq was still inevitable because they believed Hussein would never disarm voluntarily. Iraq protested that they already had disarmed, but of course no American president could accept the word of a demonstrated serial liar like Hussein. The rationale shifted again. U.S. officials emphasized that the burden of proof was now on Iraq to demonstrate conclusively that it had, in fact, disarmed. Such proof, however, was impossible, we said, since Iraq had kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq in 1998 and refused to allow them back in, which was not exactly accurate. Iraq didn't "kick the inspectors out" the way North Korea just did. The United Nations withdrew the inspectors to protect them from Bill Clinton's bombing campaign. Hussein did prevent the inspectors from returning for a period of time subsequently but then sent quiet, back-channel word to the United States that he would allow inspectors back in if assurances were given that economic sanctions would be lifted if nothing was found. When Iraq publicly hinted they would allow inspectors back into the country, the United States said it was all part of Iraq's strategy of "cheat and retreat" and that any new inspections must be limited in duration and backed up by the threat of force. The United Nations agreed and unanimously passed Resolution 1441, demanding "immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted access" to any places or people that weapons inspectors desired to inspect or interview in order to confirm that Iraq was disarmed or to destroy any weapons, equipment or chemical stocks they found that are prohibited to Iraq under previous U.N. resolutions. Immediately, some high-level U.S. officials let it be known that they did not believe the Iraqis would really cooperate with inspections and that we eventually would have to invade Iraq to disarm Hussein. To date, U.N. inspectors appear to have the access they demand and to have found nothing suspicious beyond about 16 unused artillery shells with warheads capable of carrying a chemical or biological payload, which were packed away in crates in an ammunition storage facility. A high-level administration official said the clean and empty warheads were not justification for war. He was quoted by the Washington Times as saying, "A smoking gun would be if you found a big stockpile with chemicals." Now the rationale for war seems to be shifting again as some high-level officials contend that a smoking gun will never be produced. Instead, officials are hinting that the casus belli will be a persuasive case that Iraq is not fully cooperating with inspectors; that it continues to import missile engines and other non-WMD equipment and materials barred under the U.N. arms embargo; and that it continually fires on U.S. planes patrolling so-called "no-fly zones," which the United Nations has neither authorized nor views as legal under international law. Such a bill of indictment, persuasive as it may be, would be insufficient to justify bombing or invading and occupying Iraq as long as U.N. inspectors continue to have unfettered access to Iraq sites and personnel. The next step should be to give U.N. inspectors all of the intelligence information we can to help in their search. We should open direct communications with Iraq, as we have with North Korea, but not to negotiate or offer Hussein a carrot of some kind - quite the contrary. Now is the time to sit down across the table from the Iraqis, eyeball to eyeball, and tell them precisely what they must do to avoid war. Give Iraq a detailed checklist of items and actions we demand before we will stand down militarily. Are there specific stocks of chemical weapons we know they once had that they cannot account for? Account for them or else, and here specifically is what we will accept as evidence. Do we insist that Hussein and his top lieutenants go into exile? Put it on the list. What about Iraq's WMD scientists? We learned with Germany and Japan after World War II that the only sure way to ensure that a country doesn't develop a nuclear weapons capability in the future is to remove its nuke scientists. Why not insist that all Iraqi scientists capable of working on WMD be relocated to Crete or some other acceptable locations? Bush has dealt himself a winning hand, and he can have victory without war if he plays his cards right. ************ I do think that as a loyal Republican he is a bit naive in his belief that WMD are the real issue here. Hopefully he can help convince Bush II of the folly of starting a war.
Sorry, not impressed by Powell's remarks re: a "clear" connection to Al Qaida. They're a little to similar to previous remarks re: a clear connection to 9/11, which has now been abandoned even though more than half of the American public bought the connection in advance of the promised evidence which never arrived. If there is a clear threat of WMD which are capable of attacking US interests and if it is impossible to disarm those weapons, I'd really prefer they stuck to that argument instead of the shell game they've been playing for half a year now.
Not for nothing Major but do you really think Powell would say this if it wasn't absolutely true. He said clear links ...not possible links or suggested ties....he said clear links. If you don't want to believe him without paperwork outlining the intelligence that was gathered then I don't know what to tell you.
Um, would a tie to 9-11 and a link to Al Queda be the same thing? f you chose not to buy into it, then so be it. You are basing your opinion on nothing. I am basing my stance on a pretty clear statement by Powell
When I said I want to just get it over with, I meant the actual war part, not the occupation of Iraq part.
Not for nothing Major but do you really think Powell would say this if it wasn't absolutely true. He said clear links ...not possible links or suggested ties....he said clear links. If you don't want to believe him without paperwork outlining the intelligence that was gathered then I don't know what to tell you. I'd be more inclined to believe it if they hadn't lied before. If you don't dispute the facts of the op-ed (the opinion is another issue), then Bush clearly lied about a link between Iraq & Nukes - it was either a misstatement (how do you make up & date an IAEA report that doesn't exist?) or a PR stunt to gain popular support (which it did). Popular support is fading again and we have another random statement linking Iraq and Al Queda, with no substance behind it. I'm not buying it until I see some substance b/c the White House has played this game before.
NJ: First off, please don't discount the fact that this intelligence was promised to the UN, to Congress and to the American people. They said they'd provide it and they changed their minds. Please don't forget this. Second, when we're looking at a three headed (at least) veto on the UN Security Council, it seems they'd at least share intelligence with trusted allies from these three countries. Forgive me for being suspicious when the timeline goes like this: 1. We have evidence and will share it. 2. We don't have to show evidence, we don't need support from the UN or Congress and can go it alone. 3. We will pursue support from the UN and Congress and share evidence. 4. We can't share evidence and are prepared to go it alone. Bear in mind that throughout this process, the promised evidence has been of varied threats and a connection to 9/11. We're now down to the fact that Saddam has chemical weapons which probably are not capable of attacking US soil. After the promises of proof of a 9/11 connection and a nuke program which was supposed to be viable within 6 months and after they've virtually backed off these suggestions, call me a cynic, but I'm not taking their word for anything more than every single one of our allies (with the soft exception of England, who is clearly conflicted) is.
I know, I know...you have a shoe-phone, a loaf of bread with a GPS chip in it and a great imagination.
Batman...fair enough...you've stated some very valid points. Regardless, I choose to believe Powell on this issue.
