So much for a "Clear and Present Danger"...

[MJames41]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
Let's see if I understand this.

Kerry reads a summary of a NIE prepared by the CIA director that left out qualifiers that were contained in the original NIE.

So, because Kerry trusted the CIA director and the administraton, he got screwed. And then gets criticised for trusting.

Yanno, it's almost as if this administration is writing a new definition of chutzpa.

Moral of this story is don't trust anything that comes from this administration.

He also trusted the CIA director from the previous administration, and the previous administration. Same moral.

The point that the Democrats want us to miss (ignore the facts behind the screen!) is that EVERYONE believed Hussein had WMD - some experts believe even Saddam believed he did. And now Senator's Kerry and Edwards are saying that the intelligence didn't pass the global test. Excuse me? Back in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 Germany, Russia, France, England, Italy, Israel, - country after country believed that Iraq had WMD. There wasn't any country coming forward and saying that Iraq didn't have them - not one. France wasn't against the war because they said Iraq didn't have WMD, they just didn't want us to lead the way. Please. He was all for us going to war when it was called for by President Clinton, and he backed it again (rightly) when President Bush called for war. Now he says that there wasn't enough proof. I'm not that stupid.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by DisneyMomx7
Does anybody bother to listen to John Kerry? He said he would NEVER need permission from any other country to protect the US. What he said about global test was that if you choose to attack pre-emptively your intelligence and justification should be strong enough to pass a global test - meaning that other countries count certainly understand why you had to pre-emptively attack. Obviously Iraq couldn't pass a global test - I don't think he would even pass an AMerican test if we knew then what we know now.

Why does a sovereign nation need to justify itself to the rest of the world.

Iraq could pass a mythical "global test" because the UN, France, Germany and Russia didn't want to get caught with their hands in the cookie jar, so to speak. You need to understand that the UN is set up such that any one nation can have veto power.

Maybe we should elect Miss Cleo for President since clairvoyance now seems to be a requirement. "If we knew then what we know now". Puh-leeze! How easy it that? Sheesh! Gimme a break. Like others have said, Kerry and everyone else had the same information. If Saddam didn't have WMD, why did Clinton bomb Baddhad? Saddam needed to PROVE that he didn't have them. He didn't. Thus, "serious consequences".

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
1970? Good grief, you've got to be kidding!

This is just ridiculous.

The question is, does he still believe that?

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
Maybe they did and maybe they didn't.




Oh they certainly did vote "YEA" based on the intelligence provided by the WH which brings us full circle to the 1st half of this post.

Given the number of Senate Intelligence Committee meetings Kerry apparently has missed, you might have a point. And if he didn't miss them, what was he doing? Sleeping?

 

[tonyswife]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
1970? Good grief, you've got to be kidding!

This is just ridiculous.

I don't think it's ridiculous. I find it to be a scary and stunning thing to say, I want him to explain himself. If he no longer believes it, he should clearly say so.

 

[JPN4265]

Originally posted by DisneyMomx7
They'll just come up with another reason of why we invaded Iraq. Once they realized there were no stockpiles of WMDs the reason changed to we had to topple Saddaam. While there is no disagreement that Saddaam was an evil tyrant are we going to invade every country that has a brutal dictator? The reasons keep changing and George Bush will never admit that it was a mistake. I hope people start to realize there was a difference between the War on Terror and the mess in Iraq.

So you believe that Saddaam should still be in power?

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by MJames41
He also trusted the CIA director from the previous administration, and the previous administration. Same moral.

The point that the Democrats want us to miss (ignore the facts behind the screen!) is that EVERYONE believed Hussein had WMD - some experts believe even Saddam believed he did. And now Senator's Kerry and Edwards are saying that the intelligence didn't pass the global test. Excuse me? Back in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 Germany, Russia, France, England, Italy, Israel, - country after country believed that Iraq had WMD. There wasn't any country coming forward and saying that Iraq didn't have them - not one. France wasn't against the war because they said Iraq didn't have WMD, they just didn't want us to lead the way. Please. He was all for us going to war when it was called for by President Clinton, and he backed it again (rightly) when President Bush called for war. Now he says that there wasn't enough proof. I'm not that stupid.

With all due respect, I'm going to disagree with you. If Kerry said there wasn't enough proof to go to war, I've got to see that.

The resolution that gave Bush the authority to "use all necessary force" was not a declaraton of war. Bush took this country to war because Saddam Hussein was a threat to the US. No senator, no congressman, and no presidential candidate can order troops into battle.

As it has turned out, we are involved in war that we did not have to fight. Saddam Hussein was not a "grave and gathering danger" to the US. Would another month or 2 of weapons inspections have come to the same conclusions as 2 weapons inspection teams have? We'll never know.

This administration has been wrong on everything to do with this war from WMD's to the number of troops needed to the depth of the insurgency and on and on and on.

If the war on terror is the most important issue facing us today, how can you (generic you) possibly vote for an individual and an administration that has been wrong on everything. This baffles me.

We have been through this countless numbers of times both here on the CB and the DB. Bottom line is you choose to give Bush the benefit of the doubt and another 4 years to do what he's been doing and I say the war on terror is too important to the country to give Bush another 4 years to continue doing what he's been doing.

The truth is a vote for Bush IS a vote for more of the same. I'll take my chances with someone else.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by tonyswife
I don't think it's ridiculous. I find it to be a scary and stunning thing to say, I want him to explain himself. If he no longer believes it, he should clearly say so.

Fine, if it is important to you what was said and done 34 years ago in 1970, I say put both Kerry AND Bush on a stage and question them. If one should have to explain himself, so should the other.

 

[Galahad]

If the war on terror is the most important issue facing us today, how can you (generic you) possibly vote for an individual and an administration that has been wrong on everything. This baffles me.

But it shouldn't be that baffling. We (the generic we) don't think he's done everything wrong, nor do we thing the Iraq war is a separate thing from the war on terror. It's fine to disagree. If you really don't think that the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror, then it's perfectly logical to oppose the President. But it is not irrational to agree that it IS a central part of that very long and rather complex war and support the President.

 

[jrydberg]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
The resolution that gave Bush the authority to "use all necessary force" was not a declaraton of war. Bush took this country to war because Saddam Hussein was a threat to the US. No senator, no congressman, and no presidential candidate can order troops into battle.

The relevant section of the resolution is:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

That is clearly ceding the responsibility of the Congress regarding declarations of war to the President. In effect, it is declaring war. Sen. Kerry authorized taking this country to war. Sen. Kerry and every other member of the Senate and House of Representatives knew that. To me, it was irresponsible to shun one's responsibility under the Constitution.

I'm not talking about Sen. Kerry and Sen. Edwards in particular, mind you. All those Republicans who supported the resolution were irresponsible as well, IMO.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by JPN4265
So you believe that Saddaam should still be in power?

Show us how the toppling of Saddam Hussein has made the world and, most importantly, the US safer.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by jrydberg
The relevant section of the resolution is:



That is clearly ceding the responsibility of the Congress regarding declarations of war to the President. In effect, it is declaring war. Sen. Kerry authorized taking this country to war. Sen. Kerry and every other member of the Senate and House of Representatives knew that. To me, it was irresponsible to shun one's responsibility under the Constitution.

I'm not talking about Sen. Kerry and Sen. Edwards in particular, mind you. All those Republicans who supported the resolution were irresponsible as well, IMO.

No argument here.

 

[Teejay32]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
As it has turned out, we are involved in war that we did not have to fight. Saddam Hussein was not a "grave and gathering danger" to the US. Would another month or 2 of weapons inspections have come to the same conclusions as 2 weapons inspection teams have? We'll never know.

ITA with Galahad. No news about lack WMD production is going to alter my opinion that the "gathering danger" came from terrorists themselves - not their choice of weapons. Crude explosives in the wrong hands are WMD, as Kerry himself noted (maybe by accident) in his debate.

And if you're thinking along those lines, there's really no way to absorb the other side's POV that no stockpiles = no threat. Each side will remain baffled by the other.

 

[Galahad]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
Show us how the toppling of Saddam Hussein has made the world and, most importantly, the US safer.

(Assuming for a moment that we're not just talking about this from a "political" standpoint). I think you're time frame is too narrow. We cannot show that the world is either safer NOR less safe immediately because Saddam is not in power. But the premise on which our approach to the war on terror is predicated depends on the establishment of some sort of democratic foothold in key parts of the world that support Islamic extremism. But I think our attention span is so short that we expect problems to be solved quickly, cleanly and with no challenges along the way.

The President may yet lose the election because of Iraq (please, no snide comments at this juncture, I'm trying to make a rational point). But if he does, I, for one, will be immensely proud of him. For there is no way the administration didn't see the political risk in what they were doing. I believe he put his presidency on the line in order to do something very important that he felt was right. He was sitting on great poll numbers at the time. They could have, IMO, easily manipulated events to assure an easy reelection.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by Galahad
But it shouldn't be that baffling. We (the generic we) don't think he's done everything wrong, nor do we thing the Iraq war is a separate thing from the war on terror. It's fine to disagree. If you really don't think that the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror, then it's perfectly logical to oppose the President. But it is not irrational to agree that it IS a central part of that very long and rather complex war and support the President.

And that is the central issue of this election.

Do you vote for Bush and another 4 years of the same because he's done the right thing or do you take your chances on someone else because Bush has not done the right thing?

 

[Galahad]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
And that is the central issue of this election.

Do you vote for Bush and another 4 years of the same because he's done the right thing or do you take your chances on someone else because Bush has not done the right thing?

Agreed.

I wish the argument could stay there though and not descend into "Bush is a dirty rotten liar....Halliburtan, Halliburtan, Halliburtan.....Kerry didn't earn his medals........Bush didn't take a physical.......etc....etc......"

 

[jrydberg]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
And that is the central issue of this election.

Do you vote for Bush and another 4 years of the same because he's done the right thing or do you take your chances on someone else because Bush has not done the right thing?

That is precisely what it comes down to... and really, I don't understand how either position can be baffling to the other. There are reasonable arguments on both sides.

 

[Geoff_M]

while everyone on this side of the pond seems to by hyperventalating on the "No WMD" angle of the Dulfer report, overseas there's this analysis of another section of the report that shows the "global test" was stacked against us:

Saddam and the French Connection

FRASER NELSON, FRASER NELSON AND JAMES KIRKUP

Key points

• Saddam bribery revealed
• WMD said to have been destroyed
• Blair accepts mistake over WMD

Key quote
"Just as I have had to accept that the evidence now is that there were not stockpiles of actual weapons ready to be deployed, I hope others have the honesty to accept that the report also shows that sanctions weren’t working" - Tony Blair

SADDAM HUSSEIN believed he could avoid the Iraq war with a bribery strategy targeting Jacques Chirac, the President of France, according to devastating documents released last night.

Memos from Iraqi intelligence officials, recovered by American and British inspectors, show the dictator was told as early as May 2002 that France - having been granted oil contracts - would veto any American plans for war.

But the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), which returned its full report last night, said Saddam was telling the truth when he denied on the eve of war that he had any weapons of mass destruction (WMD). He had not built any since 1992.

The ISG, who confirmed last autumn that they had found no WMD, last night presented detailed findings from interviews with Iraqi officials and documents laying out his plans to bribe foreign businessmen and politicians.

Although they found no evidence that Saddam had made any WMD since 1992, they found documents which showed the "guiding theme" of his regime was to be able to start making them again with as short a lead time as possible."

Saddam was convinced that the UN sanctions - which stopped him acquiring weapons - were on the brink of collapse and he bankrolled several foreign activists who were campaigning for their abolition. He personally approved every one.

To keep America at bay, he focusing on Russia, France and China - three of the five UN Security Council members with the power to veto war. Politicians, journalists and diplomats were all given lavish gifts and oil-for-food vouchers.

Tariq Aziz, the former Iraqi deputy prime minister, told the ISG that the "primary motive for French co-operation" was to secure lucrative oil deals when UN sanctions were lifted. Total, the French oil giant, had been promised exploration rights.

Iraqi intelligence officials then "targeted a number of French individuals that Iraq thought had a close relationship to French President Chirac," it said, including two of his "counsellors" and spokesman for his re-election campaign.

They even assessed the chances for "supporting one of the candidates in an upcoming French presidential election." Chirac is not mentioned by name.

A memo sent to Saddam dated in May last year from his intelligence corps said they met with a "French parliamentarian" who "assured Iraq that France would use its veto in the UN Security Council against any American decision to attack Iraq."

Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, last night said again that he was wrong to suggest Saddam had WMD - but asked the British public to accept that Iraq would probably have acquired such weapons if he had not acted.

However, the ISG uncovered millions of pages of documents and, after interviewing scores of captured Iraqis - including Mr Aziz - the report lays out what it says is were plans to end the United Nations sanctions then start to acquire weapons.

Saddam, it says, even fooled his own military chiefs into believing that he had WMD. This was designed to deter uprising from rebel Iraqis, on whom he deployed mustard gas in 1988, and aggressors in the Middle East.

Speaking during his trip to Ethiopia last night, the Prime Minister referred to his speech last week where he admitted being "wrong" in the main part of his case for war but right to see a gathering threat in Iraq.

"Just as I have had to accept that the evidence now is that there were not stockpiles of actual weapons ready to be deployed, I hope others have the honesty to accept that the report also shows that sanctions weren’t working," he said.

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1167592004

 

[Teejay32]

Originally posted by jrydberg
That is precisely what it comes down to... and really, I don't understand how either position can be baffling to the other. There are reasonable arguments on both sides.

I assure you, I'm baffled. But we don't have to rehash the whole thing either...

 

[Geoff_M]

More on Saddam's bribing those opposed to the US invasion of Iraq (bolding mine):

Saddam bribed politicians around world
By Robin Gedye, Foreign Affairs Writer
(Filed: 07/10/2004)

Saddam Hussein bribed senior politicians and businessmen around the world to secure an early lifting of sanctions, according to the Iraq Survey Report.

Focusing his attention in particular on France and Russia, both permanent members of the UN Security Council, Saddam awarded oil exploration contracts and financial inducements to individuals.

The bribes were at first funded by the Iraqi government, but later derived from Saddam's illegal misuse of the oil-for-food programme, which was supposed to provide food for the poor and medicine for the sick.

Some US estimates have suggested that the Iraqis siphoned off $10 billion (£5.6 billion) from the scheme.

"He [Saddam] targeted friendly companies and foreign political parties that possessed either extensive business ties to Iraq, or held pro-Iraq policies," said the report.

It named hundreds of entities who allegedly benefited from contracts to sell Iraqi oil. Among them was "one UK citizen".

Although the list included many legitimate oil traders, it also contained the names of politicians, political parties and other groups with little obvious connection to the oil industry.

Among those named were Benon Sevan, the former head of the UN's humanitarian programme; President Megawati Sukarnoputri of Indonesia; the former French interior minister Charles Pasqua; and Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the founder of Russia's Liberal Democratic Party.

The CIA's internet list appeared to have been edited to protect the identities of several firms and individuals from the US and other countries that supported the war.

France and Russia pressed for the lifting of UN sanctions from the mid-1990s.

In 1992, according to Iraqi intelligence documents included in the report, Abdel-Razek Al Hashimi, the Iraqi ambassador to France, handed $1 million for the ruling Socialist party to Pierre Joxe, the defence minister.

Tariq Aziz, Saddam's foreign minister, awarded several French "individuals" substantial oil vouchers in return for using their influence to help lift sanctions.

Most vouchers could be exchanged for cash from oil middlemen in Baghdad. "Saddam sought favourable relations with France because France was influential in the Security Council," the report said.

In June 2000, Iraq awarded $1.78 billion in short-term contracts under the food programme to France, worth 15 per cent of Iraq's total oil contracts, in the hope of ensuring support over sanctions.

Iraq's security services "flagged two groups influential to France's policy in the UN Security Council - government officials and influential citizens", the report said.

It disclosed that a $12 billion deal to build economic relations with Iraq was discussed with Russia's energy minister.

A staggering 32 per cent of oil-for-food contracts went to Russia in the form of oil vouchers and gifts in which the new oligarchs, officials and political parties were principal beneficiaries.

"The lion's share of Iraq's undeveloped oil fields went to Russia," said the report. In 2002, Russian firms negotiated 10-year contracts to begin exploring Iraqi oil fields.

An American official said: "There are a lot of active members of the Security Council who were violating the resolutions that they passed."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...07.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/10/07/ixnewstop.html