The Real News in the Downing Street Memos

[manny]

A long article, but dead on in its conclusions IMO:


http://www.medialens.org/alerts/index.php


Our understanding of the story was based solely on what we had gleaned from a few newspaper and TV reports. According to the media accounts we saw, the main revelation appeared to centre around comments made by Sir Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6:

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD” and that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy“.

This did not strike us as particularly interesting. We knew from former US treasury secretary Paul O’Neill’s evidence that Bush had been intent on deposing Saddam Hussein from the very first days of taking power:

"It was all about finding a way to do it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this'... From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go." (O’Neill, cited, Julian Borger, 'Bush decided to remove Saddam "on day one"', The Guardian, January 12, 2004)

And it was obvious from the testimony of any number of intelligence experts, and from exposures relating to the “dodgy dossiers”, that intelligence and facts had been distorted to fit policy.

Imagine our surprise, then, when we finally got round to reading Smith’s original May 1 article, including the memo itself, and found that the real story was the revelation that Straw and Blair had conspired to use inspections to lure Saddam into obstructing the UN, so providing an excuse for war. By implication, the leaks clearly reveal that Blair and Straw had been consistently lying in 2002 and 2003 about their hopes for a peaceful resolution to the crisis.

In an article for the Los Angeles Times last week entitled, ‘The real news in the Downing Street memos’, Michael Smith appears to agree with us about the real story:

“Although Blair and Bush still insist the decision to go to the UN was about averting war, one memo states that it was, in fact, about ‘wrong-footing’ Hussein into giving them a legal justification for war.

“British officials hoped the ultimatum could be framed in words that would be so unacceptable to Hussein that he would reject it outright. But they were far from certain this would work, so there was also a Plan B... Put simply, US aircraft patrolling the southern no-fly zone were dropping a lot more bombs in the hope of provoking a reaction that would give the allies an excuse to carry out a full-scale bombing campaign, an air war, the first stage of the conflict.” (Michael Smith, ‘The real news in the Downing Street memos,’ Los Angeles Times, June 23, 2005; http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-smith23jun23,0,1838831.story)

Smith’s conclusion:

“The way in which the intelligence was ‘fixed’ to justify war is old news.

“The real news is the shady April 2002 deal to go to war, the cynical use of the UN to provide an excuse, and the secret, illegal air war without the backing of Congress.” (Smith, ibid)

We could not agree more. In considering what follows, readers might like to keep Smith’s comments in mind as we see how close the corporate media have come to communicating the “real news” of the leaked documents.

[manny]

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/unofficial_war_air_bombings_graph.htm

[BCD]

"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 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.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, 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 State, Nov. 10, 1999

"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 mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e 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

"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

[Cochise]

I didn't realize I had manny on iggy, don't remember why frankly, but I found it very funny that I opened the thread (with the title that it has) and saw nothing.

[beavis]

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/unofficial_war_air_bombings_graph.htm
Yeah, I'd expect Iraq to be bombed a little more around the time we invaded too. :hmmm:

[Cochise]

Despite the fact that the article quotes deals with simply numerical information with no interpreation provided and means little without context, is anyone surprised that the military was operating in the theater pursuant to the oncoming war prior to official declaration?

I mean, is this the 1700s, where we should all line up in ranks and take turns shooting at each other?

[Taco John]

is anyone surprised that the military was operating in the theater pursuant to the oncoming war prior to official declaration?



Uh... Yes. It's news to me. I had no idea we were even bombing. What the hell were we bombing?

[Logical]

Uh... Yes. It's news to me. I had no idea we were even bombing. What the hell were we bombing?I do recall announcements of us bombing Anti-aircraft sites but that is all I can recall hearing about.

[Saggysack]

I do recall announcements of us bombing Anti-aircraft sites but that is all I can recall hearing about.

I think that was all we bombed. And we only did that after pilots recieved a tone indicating they were being targeted.

[Cochise]

I think that was all we bombed. And we only did that after pilots recieved a tone indicating they were being targeted.

Yeah, like I was saying... it's just numerical data. It could have been largely incidents like you describe.

Anyway, I was referring to the fact that it was reported in some media in the weeks before the war that special operations were already in-country clearing the way. Why would it be a stretch to think that other aspects of the military were?

[Saggysack]

Yeah, like I was saying... it's just numerical data. It could have been largely incidents like you describe.

Anyway, I was referring to the fact that it was reported in some media in the weeks before the war that special operations were already in-country clearing the way. Why would it be a stretch to think that other aspects of the military were?

SO soldiers are always the first on the ground. Usually it is just identifing targets and such.

[manny]

"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 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.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, 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 State, Nov. 10, 1999

"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 mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e 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

"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



I agree. The Democrats are just as responsible for the crime of the Iraq invasion as the Republicans. We need a Third political party that isn't in the pocket of big business and isn't willing to lie us into a war, or cut needed social programs counted on by working people, or wipe away precious civil and political freedoms so that the rich can have a free hand to plunder us and the world.

Malcolm X used to compare the Democrats to the Fox and the Wolf, you run from one to the other, but they'll both eat you alive. You've shown that he was right.

[manny]

Despite the fact that the article quotes deals with simply numerical information with no interpreation provided and means little without context, is anyone surprised that the military was operating in the theater pursuant to the oncoming war prior to official declaration?

I mean, is this the 1700s, where we should all line up in ranks and take turns shooting at each other?


I only posted segments of the article because I thought it was just too long to post in total. Read the whole article, and note the timing of the bombing increase (before the "debate" and authorization in Congress); and the attempts to provoke a response from Hussein that could be used as justification for an invasion (at a time when the US and UK were claiming military measures would be a "last resort").

Read the whole article.




Just to add some further material for John and others. It was reported in Britain last week, which means it might make it into the US media in another month. Maybe.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1669640,00.html

THE American general who commanded allied air forces during the Iraq war appears to have admitted in a briefing to American and British officers that coalition aircraft waged a secret air war against Iraq from the middle of 2002, nine months before the invasion began.
Addressing a briefing on lessons learnt from the Iraq war Lieutenant-General Michael Moseley said that in 2002 and early 2003 allied aircraft flew 21,736 sorties, dropping more than 600 bombs on 391 “carefully selected targets” before the war officially started.

The nine months of allied raids “laid the foundations” for the allied victory, Moseley said. They ensured that allied forces did not have to start the war with a protracted bombardment of Iraqi positions.

If those raids exceeded the need to maintain security in the no-fly zones of southern and northern Iraq, they would leave President George W Bush and Tony Blair vulnerable to allegations that they had acted illegally.

Moseley’s remarks have emerged after reports in The Sunday Times that showed an increase in allied bombing in southern Iraq was described in leaked minutes of a meeting of the war cabinet as “spikes of activity to put pressure on the regime”.

Moseley told the briefing at Nellis airbase in Nebraska on July 17, 2003, that the raids took place under cover of patrols of the southern no-fly zone; their purpose was ostensibly to protect the ethnic minorities.

A leaked memo previously disclosed by The Sunday Times, detailing a meeting chaired by the prime minister and attended by Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, Geoff Hoon, the then defence secretary, and Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, chief of defence staff, indicated that the US was carrying out the bombing.

But Moseley’s remarks, and figures for the amount of bombs dropped in southern Iraq during 2002, indicate that the RAF was taking as large a part in the bombing as American aircraft.

[patteeu]

Uh... Yes. It's news to me. I had no idea we were even bombing. What the hell were we bombing?

We were bombing for something like 12 straight years. How could you miss it? For one thing, everytime an Iraqi anti-aircraft radar locked onto one of our patrol craft, we took the liberty of shutting it down ourselves.

...

This is really a yawner, Manny. Not really the kind of big splash a showman would like to make when he re-emerges on stage after a long absence. Maybe you should try again in a few months.

[manny]

We were bombing for something like 12 straight years. How could you miss it? For one thing, everytime an Iraqi anti-aircraft radar locked onto one of our patrol craft, we took the liberty of shutting it down ourselves.



This is really a yawner, Manny. Not really the kind of big splash a showman would like to make when he re-emerges on stage after a long absence. Maybe you should try again in a few months.

General Moseley explains that the targets were "carefully selected" meaning the attacks were planned, not the product of random circumstances when Iraqi radar switched on as you're trying to incorrectly and deliberately infer.

Bombing for 12 years? Yes. Bombing for 12 years at the same levels as late 2003-04? No. An increase that occurred BEFORE the Congressional "debate" on authorization of force against Iraq, BEFORE submitting UN resolutions, BEFORE the US government was claiming military action as a "last resort."

Actually, I haven't been posting because frankly I didn't think you and several others were worth my time. Thanks for reminding me of that.

[stevieray]

General Moseley explains that the targets were "carefully selected" meaning the attacks were planned, not the product of random circumstances when Iraqi radar switched on as you're trying to incorrectly and deliberately infer.

Bombing for 12 years? Yes. Bombing for 12 years at the same levels as late 2003-04? No. An increase that occurred BEFORE the Congressional "debate" on authorization of force against Iraq, BEFORE submitting UN resolutions, BEFORE the US government was claiming military action as a "last resort."

Actually, I haven't been posting because frankly I didn't think you and several others were worth my time. Thanks for reminding me of that.

how much is your time worth?

[manny]

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050613&s=scahill


The Sunday Times of London recently reported on new evidence showing that "The RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war." The paper cites newly released statistics from the British Defense Ministry showing that "the Allies dropped twice as many bombs on Iraq in the second half of 2002 as they did during the whole of 2001" and that "a full air offensive" was under way months before the invasion had officially begun.

The implications of this information for US lawmakers are profound. It was already well known in Washington and international diplomatic circles that the real aim of the US attacks in the no-fly zones was not to protect Shiites and Kurds. But the new disclosures prove that while Congress debated whether to grant Bush the authority to go to war, while Hans Blix had his UN weapons-inspection teams scrutinizing Iraq and while international diplomats scurried to broker an eleventh-hour peace deal, the Bush Administration was already in full combat mode--not just building the dossier of manipulated intelligence, as the Downing Street memo demonstrated, but acting on it by beginning the war itself. And according to the Sunday Times article, the Administration even hoped the attacks would push Saddam into a response that could be used to justify a war the Administration was struggling to sell.

On the eve of the official invasion, on March 8, 2003, Bush said in his national radio address: "We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force." Bush said this after nearly a year of systematic, aggressive bombings of Iraq, during which Iraq was already being disarmed by force, in preparation for the invasion to come. By the Pentagon's own admission, it carried out seventy-eight individual, offensive airstrikes against Iraq in 2002 alone.

"It reminded me of a boxing match in which one of the boxers is told not to move while the other is allowed to punch and only stop when he is convinced that he has weakened his opponent to the point where he is defeated before the fight begins," says former UN Assistant Secretary General Hans Von Sponeck, a thirty-year career diplomat who was the top UN official in Iraq from 1998 to 2000. During both the Clinton and Bush administrations, Washington has consistently and falsely claimed these attacks were mandated by UN Resolution 688, passed after the Gulf War, which called for an end to the Iraqi government's repression in the Kurdish north and the Shiite south. Von Sponeck dismissed this justification as a "total misnomer." In an interview with The Nation, Von Sponeck said that the new information "belatedly confirms" what he has long argued: "The no-fly zones had little to do with protecting ethnic and religious groups from Saddam Hussein's brutality" but were in fact an "illegal establishment...for bilateral interests of the US and the UK."

These attacks were barely covered in the press and Von Sponeck says that as far back as 1999, the United States and Britain pressured the UN not to call attention to them. During his time in Iraq, Von Sponeck began documenting each of the airstrikes, showing "regular attacks on civilian installations including food warehouses, residences, mosques, roads and people." These reports, he said, were "welcomed" by Secretary General Kofi Annan, but "the US and UK governments strongly objected to this reporting." Von Sponeck says that he was pressured to end the practice, with a senior British diplomat telling him, "All you are doing is putting a UN stamp of approval on Iraqi propaganda." But Von Sponeck continued documenting the damage and visited many attack sites. In 1999 alone, he confirmed the death of 144 civilians and more than 400 wounded by the US/UK bombings.

[patteeu]

General Moseley explains that the targets were "carefully selected" meaning the attacks were planned, not the product of random circumstances when Iraqi radar switched on as you're trying to incorrectly and deliberately infer.

Bombing for 12 years? Yes. Bombing for 12 years at the same levels as late 2003-04? No. An increase that occurred BEFORE the Congressional "debate" on authorization of force against Iraq, BEFORE submitting UN resolutions, BEFORE the US government was claiming military action as a "last resort."

I was responding to Taco John who said he wasn't aware of the fact that we were bombing at all, but thanks for your irrelevant input.

I have no problem with the bombing campaign that you describe. Throughout those 12 years, Iraq repeatedly committed acts of war against our patroling aircraft. I haven't seen any response by any of our CIC's that seem unreasonably excessive to me. If anything, we let it go on far too long without taking more forceful action.

Actually, I haven't been posting because frankly I didn't think you and several others were worth my time. Thanks for reminding me of that.

Good. Cya.

[Michael Michigan]

Malcolm X used to compare the Democrats to the Fox and the Wolf, you run from one to the other, but they'll both eat you alive. You've shown that he was right.

Actually, I haven't been posting because frankly I didn't think you and several others were worth my time. Thanks for reminding me of that.

In the words of Lumbergh...

Umm, yea--we're gonna need to go ahead and move you downstairs into storage B.

We have some new people coming in, and we need all the space we can get.

So if you could go ahead and pack up your stuff and move it down there, that would be terrific, Mmm--okay?

[Taco John]

We were bombing for something like 12 straight years. How could you miss it?



I knew we were flying over there.... I knew we were shot at on occassion. I had no idea we were running weeks long bombing campaigns...

[Cochise]

..so what is the point of this? That we bombed Iraq more leading up to a war? Where's the 'gotcha' that is surely intended?

[RINGLEADER]

Yeah, we should have stopped bombing so it would be harder to fight.

:shake:

Anyway, can you point to the part of the Downing Street Memo that:

1. Shows Bush was responsible for enacting a policy of regime change in Iraq.

2. Shows Bush was not given information by the CIA prior to the run up to war that showed Saddam had WMDs.

3. Shows Bush did not go to the UN to get a resolution giving Saddam one final chance to reconcile his weapons declarations.

4. Shows that the resolution that Bush got at the UN didn't pass by a unanimous 15-0 vote.

5. Shows that Congress didn't authorize the invasion of Iraq on a bi-partisan vote.

6. Shows that the head of the UN didn't make the statement that "everyone knows Saddam has WMDs".

7. Shows that the head of the UN weapons insepction team didn't report to the Security Council in the weeks before the invasion of Iraq that Saddam had STILL not provided the disposition for tons of WMDs.

8. Shows why Saddam should have been believed when he said he destroyed tons of WMDs after UN inspectors were removed in 1998 after he had spent 7 years hiding those same weapons when the UN inspectors were actually in his country.

9. Shows how Bush could ignore information from Russian, England, and France that concluded that Saddam was harboring WMDs or plans to strike the US using proxies.

10. Shows how Bush could have lied about going into Iraq to stop them from using, giving or producing WMDs when Saddam's own generals believed the country held stockpiles of WMDs at the same time. Should Bush have somehow known something that Saddam's own military didn't?

And that's before we even get into the amount of time Saddam was given (12 years) to make good on his agreements made in the 91 armistice or the various bi-partisan committee reports that concluded that there HAD been high-level dialogue between Saddam's regime and Usama in the late 90s.

The fact that some on the left hold this document out as evidence that is strong enough to impeach Bush on borders on the laughable...unless you can disprove the facts presented above.

[RINGLEADER]

I knew we were flying over there.... I knew we were shot at on occassion. I had no idea we were running weeks long bombing campaigns...


One other thing you need to remember is that when our aircraft got 'lit up' by Saddam's anti-aircraft batteries they'd fire HARM missiles at the offending weapons. So a lot of the "bombings" that took place during the 12 years when Saddam was breaking the terms of the armistice he signed in 1991 were solely because of actions that Saddam was taking.

In the months prior to invasion, when it became clear that Saddam would not comply with UN resolution 1441, I can't see why we wouldn't step up bombing to pave the way for the invasion that Saddam seemed to be begging us to conduct.

[penchief]

..so what is the point of this? That we bombed Iraq more leading up to a war? Where's the 'gotcha' that is surely intended?

There are a couple valid points, in my view.

First, I think some people could say that the increased bombing, which was clearly designed and clearly an act of aggression, was not justified by anything that Iraq was doing differently. Second, that fact could be a clue to the administration's true intent at a time when they were claiming to do all they could to avoid war when, in fact, the opposite appears more likely.

If true, both of those points undermine the administration's rationale when defending their already disproven justifications for attacking Iraq. It just adds to the perception that the administration had war with Iraq on their agenda from very early on.

I'd still love to know what went on at Dick Cheney's energy task force meetings. IMO, we would have to be naive to think that Haliburton and Enron weren't there. What might be even more revealing is the discovery of who else may have been present and whether or not the occupation of Iraq was discussed.

[manny]

..so what is the point of this? That we bombed Iraq more leading up to a war? Where's the 'gotcha' that is surely intended?


Why do you insist on missing the point?

The bombing was offensive in nature. It was unprovoked, as even a US general concluded. He, in fact, described the bombing campaign as having "laid the foundations" for the invasion. AND, it preceded all of the now clearly phony diplomatic efforts to "avoid" a war on Iraq.

AND, it was done before any debate in Congress on empowering the Executive to begin a war against Iraq. All the rhetoric about war as a "last resort" was merely false propaganda in service to an aggressive, unprovoked war.

[manny]

I think that was all we bombed. And we only did that after pilots recieved a tone indicating they were being targeted.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/06/19/INGEOD8MJR1.DTL

Charlie Clements, now head of the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee, described driving in Iraq months before the war. "A building would just explode, hit by a missile from 30,000 feet." "What is that building?" Clements would ask. "Oh, that's a telephone exchange," he was told.

Later, at Nevada's Nellis Air Force Base, Clements heard a U.S. general boast "that he began taking out assets that could help in resisting an invasion at least six months before war was declared."

Earlier this month, Jeremy Scahill wrote a powerful piece on the Web site of the Nation, describing a huge air assault in September 2002. "Approximately 100 U.S. and British planes flew from Kuwait into Iraqi airspace," Scahill writes.

"At least seven types of aircraft were part of this massive operation, including U.S. F-15 Strike Eagles and Royal Air Force Tornado ground-attack planes. They dropped precision-guided munitions on Saddam Hussein's major western air-defense facility, clearing the path for Special Forces helicopters that lay in wait in Jordan.

"Earlier attacks had been carried out against Iraqi command and control centers, radar detection systems, Revolutionary Guard units, communication centers and mobile air-defense systems. The Pentagon's goal was clear: Destroy Iraq's ability to resist."

As Scahill points out, this was a month before the congressional vote and two months before the U.N. resolution. The United States hadn't declared war. Bush had no authorization, not even a fig leaf. This pre-emptive war pre- empted Congress and international law.

Most Americans don't know about these prewar attacks. The bombings that destroyed Iraq's air defenses were under the radar for both the American media and American citizens.

[penchief]

Yeah, we should have stopped bombing so it would be harder to fight.

:shake:

Anyway, can you point to the part of the Downing Street Memo that:

1. Shows Bush was responsible for enacting a policy of regime change in Iraq.

2. Shows Bush was not given information by the CIA prior to the run up to war that showed Saddam had WMDs.

3. Shows Bush did not go to the UN to get a resolution giving Saddam one final chance to reconcile his weapons declarations.

4. Shows that the resolution that Bush got at the UN didn't pass by a unanimous 15-0 vote.

5. Shows that Congress didn't authorize the invasion of Iraq on a bi-partisan vote.

6. Shows that the head of the UN didn't make the statement that "everyone knows Saddam has WMDs".

7. Shows that the head of the UN weapons insepction team didn't report to the Security Council in the weeks before the invasion of Iraq that Saddam had STILL not provided the disposition for tons of WMDs.

8. Shows why Saddam should have been believed when he said he destroyed tons of WMDs after UN inspectors were removed in 1998 after he had spent 7 years hiding those same weapons when the UN inspectors were actually in his country.

9. Shows how Bush could ignore information from Russian, England, and France that concluded that Saddam was harboring WMDs or plans to strike the US using proxies.

10. Shows how Bush could have lied about going into Iraq to stop them from using, giving or producing WMDs when Saddam's own generals believed the country held stockpiles of WMDs at the same time. Should Bush have somehow known something that Saddam's own military didn't?

And that's before we even get into the amount of time Saddam was given (12 years) to make good on his agreements made in the 91 armistice or the various bi-partisan committee reports that concluded that there HAD been high-level dialogue between Saddam's regime and Usama in the late 90s.

The fact that some on the left hold this document out as evidence that is strong enough to impeach Bush on borders on the laughable...unless you can disprove the facts presented above.

I have to give you a lot of credit for your diligence and thoroughness. While all of your points conveniently omit some very general ingredients, argumentatively, they serve your purpose.

However, one can not overlook the fact that all of this administration's ever shifting reasons for attacking Iraq have been debunked except for their last one, "spreading democracy."

Also, let's not forget that they did attempt to justify their WMD argument by intentionally using intelligence that had already been debunked by Joseph Wilson. If that attempt were not intentional why didn't they just fess up when caught instead of outing his wife, Valerie Plame.

So while the "you don't have any proof" crowd can continue to insist that this administration's motives are pure, the circumstantial evidence seems to be generating an enourmous pile of dung. At some point, it seems that something has to give. And if it does, the entire house of cards could come tumbling down in a most embarrassing and humiliating way for our country.

[mlyonsd]

So while the "you don't have any proof" crowd can continue to insist that this administration's motives are pure, the circumstantial evidence seems to be generating an enourmous pile of dung. At some point, it seems that something has to give. And if it does, the entire house of cards could come tumbling down in a most embarrassing and humiliating way for our country.

Your enormous pile of dung might just get flung back in your face if the Bush administration gets tired of conspiracy accusations and starts unloading classified intelligience documentation to show their justification for going to war.

Go ahead and keep picking away though, it's your right. Just don't put 2 and 2 together and come up with 5 cause IMO that's all you've done to this point.

[penchief]

Your enormous pile of dung might just get flung back in your face if the Bush administration gets tired of conspiracy accusations and starts unloading classified intelligience documentation to show their justification for going to war.

Go ahead and keep picking away though, it's your right. Just don't put 2 and 2 together and come up with 5 cause IMO that's all you've done to this point.

It's more like putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 4 but having the 5 crowd tell you that you can't trust your own logic because you don't have the proof.

It sounds like you are suggesting that this administration is so noble that it would rather utilize deception to sell war rather than "leak" the truth. I think we all know this administration better than that. If they had information that would make them look good it would be disseminated in a New York minute.

When has this administration ever been adverse to leaking information that would support their agenda? I mean, come on. This White House consists of some of the most cut-throat, win-at-all-cost operatives in recent memory. They are also some of the most PR savvy individuals to ever run a government. They undermine the truth for political gain without batting an eye so why would they be adverse to leaking the truth when it would be beneficial to their cause? It just doesn't make sense.

Think about it. Someone played the "Plame game." And that was classified information. But of course, we don't have any proof, so..........

[stevieray]

However, one can not overlook the fact that all of this administration's ever shifting reasons for attacking Iraq have been debunked except for their last one, "spreading democracy."




BS. And I love how when people don't buy your BS, your conspiracy theory gets bigger and then you just keep broadening your attacks, basically saying that our whole system is dishonest and incompetent when Bush is in office.

I'm surprised you can even enjoy today, considering you're so embarassed.

[mlyonsd]

It's more like putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 4 but having the 5 crowd tell you that you can't trust your own logic because you don't have the proof.

It sounds like you are suggesting that this administration is so noble that it would rather utilize deception to sell war rather than "leak" the truth. I think we all know this administration better than that. If they had information that would make them look good it would be disseminated in a New York minute.

When has this administration ever been adverse to leaking information that would support their agenda? I mean, come on. This White House consists of some of the most cut-throat, win-at-all-cost operatives in recent memory. They are also some of the most PR savvy individuals to ever run a government. They undermine the truth for political gain without batting an eye so why would they be adverse to leaking the truth when it would be beneficial to their cause? It just doesn't make sense.

Think about it. Someone played the "Plame game." And that was classified information. But of course, we don't have any proof, so..........

You're very welcome to your opinion but the problem is you have no facts other then a memo one could argue the true meaning of.

Get with it, prove it, but when you go spewing conspiracies as if they were matter of fact truth all I can do is laugh at your partisanship.

UD and jAZ are already on the case, so you better get busy and catch up to them or they'll scoop you.

[BCD]

I agree. The Democrats are just as responsible for the crime of the Iraq invasion as the Republicans. We need a Third political party that isn't in the pocket of big business and isn't willing to lie us into a war, or cut needed social programs counted on by working people, or wipe away precious civil and political freedoms so that the rich can have a free hand to plunder us and the world.

Malcolm X used to compare the Democrats to the Fox and the Wolf, you run from one to the other, but they'll both eat you alive. You've shown that he was right.Wow. You are the 1st to respond to these statements...

[jettio]

I do recall announcements of us bombing Anti-aircraft sites but that is all I can recall hearing about.

Those were WOMDs storage facilities disguised as anti-aircraft batteries.

Those bombings totally obliterated the stockpile.

The true reason for the invasion are those that have always motivated rational men when they fight to the death or spend all of their money.

They did it for the pussy.

[penchief]

BS. And I love how when people don't buy your BS, your conspiracy theory gets bigger and then you just keep broadening your attacks, basically saying that our whole system is dishonest and incompetent when Bush is in office.

I'm surprised you can even enjoy today, considering you're so embarassed.

Being proud of my country's heritage is exactly why I'm so embarrassed by the Bush Administration.

[penchief]

You're very welcome to your opinion but the problem is you have no facts other then a memo one could argue the true meaning of.

Get with it, prove it, but when you go spewing conspiracies as if they were matter of fact truth all I can do is laugh at your partisanship.

UD and jAZ are already on the case, so you better get busy and catch up to them or they'll scoop you.

Prove it. Prove it. Prove it. You guys sound like a broken record. Any true American would ask the logical questions that beg to be asked. To blindly ignore the swelling of circumstantial evidence only leads the rest of us to believe that too many people are willing to be sheep.

I love my country just as much as anyone on this board but I am not going to sit back and allow our leaders to play the patriotism card while they defile it's legacy. I have questions and I am going to ask them. You can go on blindly defending those who have manipulated our loyalty for their political gain but I want PROOF that they didn't. Because all of the indicators suggest that they have been less than forthcoming when it comes to the truth.

If we could only get Kenneth Starr on the case it's possible that half this administration would already be behind bars. But, since we can't even get an honest investigation of ANYTHING fishy that has occurred during the Bush reign, I doubt that is even a viable option before Cheneyburton's eight years are up.

Hell, this far into Clinton's second term we had already investigated a score of "scandals" that had absolutely nothing to do with the operation of our government, let alone anything related to matters as questionable as those surrounding this administration's conduct of important business pertinent to the future security and prosperity of our country.

I'm just tired of the hypocricy. Nothing is more important than what is going on right now. This nation hasn't been in a pickle like this in a long time. The conduct and honesty of our government is highly questionable. Americans are dying. The world hates us. The administration has been honest about almost nothing. And some of you want to blast those of us who think our country is better than that?

[CHIEF4EVER]

Being proud of my country's heritage is exactly why I'm so embarrassed by the Bush Administration.

ROFL A Clinton backer expressing embarrassment at what another president does or did. Ohhhhh the irony..........ROFL

[penchief]

You're very welcome to your opinion but the problem is you have no facts other then a memo one could argue the true meaning of.

Get with it, prove it, but when you go spewing conspiracies as if they were matter of fact truth all I can do is laugh at your partisanship.

UD and jAZ are already on the case, so you better get busy and catch up to them or they'll scoop you.

Why don't you tell me what truth it is that the Bush administration is protecting? What classified material is it that they are so unwilling to release that is going to show that they have been so noble in their conduct and so unfairly criticized?

[penchief]

Wow. You are the 1st to respond to these statements...

That's not true. I, and other progressives have criticized democrats for bowing to the political pressures of 9/11 without weighing the consequences.

I, for one, was particularly harsh on congress and the senate for their appeasement.

[penchief]

ROFL A Clinton backer expressing embarrassment at what another president does or did. Ohhhhh the irony..........ROFL

Boy, that seems to be that pat response for those of you who don't want to address the issues that are being discussed. This is not about what happened before Bill Clinton became president or his lying about it under oath. This is about government business of the highest order. If you want to try to turn the tables on what is happening today then it is apparent that you are not willing to be objective about our current situation.

[CHIEF4EVER]

Boy, that seems to be that pat response for those of you who don't want to address the issues that are being discussed. This is not about what happened before Bill Clinton became president or his lying about it under oath. This is about government business of the highest order. If you want to try to turn the tables on what is happening today then it is apparent that you are not willing to be objective about our current situation.

Nah, I just got a chuckle out of the irony of it all. You posted about the "hypocrisy" being exposed and about being embarrassed by the actions of our president while at the same time being a Clinton backer. That is hypocrisy and embarrassment at it's pinnacle.

[penchief]

Nah, I just got a chuckle out of the irony of it all. You posted about the "hypocrisy" being exposed and about being embarrassed by the actions of our president while at the same time being a Clinton backer. That is hypocrisy and embarrassment at it's pinnacle.

And I was responding to someone that accused me of being embarrassed about my country which is absolutely false. I simply pointed out the difference between being embarrassed about my country and being embarassed about the conduct of my government when conducting my country's official business.

In response to your comments; while Clinton's personal conduct was embarrassing it had nothing to do with the business of running our country as much as it did the republican's congress's obsession with exposing Clinton for being a slime for political gain, thereby, ultimately harming our country far more than helping it.

[CHIEF4EVER]

In response to your comments; while Clinton's personal conduct was embarrassing it had nothing to do with the business of running our country as much as it did the republican's congress's obsession with exposing Clinton for being a slime for political gain, thereby, ultimately harming our country far more than helping it.

What a short memory we have when it is convenient. Clinton was a lying, draft dodging, adulterous pile of feces. Have you forgotten about Whitewater? THE MAN WAS A CRIMINAL. He made a mockery of the presidency and the nation as a whole. Let's not even start on his criminal ineptitude in the Somalia debacle or the fact that he let the very terrorist slip through his fingers (even though gift wrapped) who attacked us on 9/11. As to the highlighted portion of your comment, it would take a spin job of incredible scale to convince anyone in their right mind that the Republicans exposing Clinton as a crook, liar and adulterer hurt the country in any way. If exposing that truth was wrong, then anything any other president does wrong is likewise taboo. You can't have it both ways.

[mlyonsd]

Why don't you tell me what truth it is that the Bush administration is protecting? What classified material is it that they are so unwilling to release that is going to show that they have been so noble in their conduct and so unfairly criticized?

To answer your question as honestly as I can I'd guess inaccurate intelligience.

Now you answer a question for me.

During the march to war....if there was any overwhelming credible intelligience proving what Saddam did with his existing WMD and/or proved beyond a reasonable doubt he wasn't seeking materials for WMD...why did no other country present this intelligience in front of the UN and vote against 1441?

And don't point to one memo with the vague verb "fixed" in it.

Let me save you the trouble and I'll answer my question for you. The entire world was duped. Iraq was given 12 years plus to come clean and they chose not to. Blair indicated himself that in light of 911 and the intelligience at the time the Iraqi situation had to be addressed.

All partisan people have this one basic flaw, they all forget actual history and grab onto ANY quacky conspiracy theory just because they don't care for a particular political stance/view. It happens on both the left and right. Sometimes they're right, most times they're wrong.

Like I said, knock yourself out proving Bush alone drug a coalition into a war with Iraq. Think about how you go about it though, your credibility suffers when you act partisan and don't address all the facts honestly.

[penchief]

To answer your question as honestly as I can I'd guess inaccurate intelligience.

Now you answer a question for me.

During the march to war....if there was any overwhelming credible intelligience proving what Saddam did with his existing WMD and/or proved beyond a reasonable doubt he wasn't seeking materials for WMD...why did no other country present this intelligience in front of the UN and vote against 1441?

And don't point to one memo with the vague verb "fixed" in it.

Let me save you the trouble and I'll answer my question for you. The entire world was duped. Iraq was given 12 years plus to come clean and they chose not to. Blair indicated himself that in light of 911 and the intelligience at the time the Iraqi situation had to be addressed.

All partisan people have this one basic flaw, they all forget actual history and grab onto ANY quacky conspiracy theory just because they don't care for a particular political stance/view. It happens on both the left and right. Sometimes they're right, most times they're wrong.

Like I said, knock yourself out proving Bush alone drug a coalition into a war with Iraq. Think about how you go about it though, your credibility suffers when you act partisan and don't address all the facts honestly.

A coalition that included Britian, Spain, and a handful of bribed third-world countries? That's some coalition.

Anyway, why would they sit on evidence that exhonerates them? I doubt very seriously anyone here would expect them to do that. Of course, as soon as they come up with something they can twist to make themselves look better, they'll use it. We all know they'll do that just as they have tried before.

[penchief]

What a short memory we have when it is convenient. Clinton was a lying, draft dodging, adulterous pile of feces. Have you forgotten about Whitewater? THE MAN WAS A CRIMINAL. He made a mockery of the presidency and the nation as a whole. Let's not even start on his criminal ineptitude in the Somalia debacle or the fact that he let the very terrorist slip through his fingers (even though gift wrapped) who attacked us on 9/11. As to the highlighted portion of your comment, it would take a spin job of incredible scale to convince anyone in their right mind that the Republicans exposing Clinton as a crook, liar and adulterer hurt the country in any way. If exposing that truth was wrong, then anything any other president does wrong is likewise taboo. You can't have it both ways.

I'm suggesting that there is a difference in questionable behavior that took place in a sitting president's past (both Clinton and Bush have enough of that to criticize) and questionable behavior in the conduct of a nation's business that occurs during a president's tenure. The former is a reflection of the man's character and personal past, the latter very well could reflect an abuse of presidential power.

It is my opinion that questionable behavior in the conduct of a nation's business has more serious consequences than does a sitting president's past personal behavior that has come under attack for political purposes.

If Bush supporters can call liberals and democrats hypocrites for trying to make that distinction then what does that make conservatives and republicans for trying to defend this president for his questionable behavior during the execution of his presidential duties while blasting Clinton for things that primarily happened before he became president?

[mlyonsd]

A coalition that included Britian, Spain, and a handful of bribed third-world countries? That's some coalition.

Anyway, why would they sit on evidence that exhonerates them? I doubt very seriously anyone here would expect them to do that. Of course, as soon as they come up with something they can twist to make themselves look better, they'll use it. We all know they'll do that just as they have tried before.

You conveniently avoided my question and/or missed my point. If there was enough evidence to question Iraq's WMD why did all 15 UN security council nations fail to share that intelligience and/or vote against UN resolution 1441?

The burden of proof is on you. Strike two.

[Cochise]

Damnit people!

More cowbell!!

[mlyonsd]

I'm suggesting that there is a difference in questionable behavior that took place in a sitting president's past (both Clinton and Bush have enough of that to criticize) and questionable behavior in the conduct of a nation's business that occurs during a president's tenure. The former is a reflection of the man's character and personal past, the latter very well could reflect an abuse of presidential power.

It is my opinion that questionable behavior in the conduct of a nation's business has more serious consequences than does a sitting president's past personal behavior that has come under attack for political purposes.

If Bush supporters can call liberals and democrats hypocrites for trying to make that distinction then what does that make conservatives and republicans for trying to defend this president for his questionable behavior during the execution of his presidential duties while blasting Clinton for things that primarily happened before he became president?

Strike 3.

First, you have not proven Bush is guilty of anything other then leading the nation during a critical time.

For you to compare that with a President that takes an oath and then perjures himself proves you are partisan beyond help. If you are willing to let any President lie to you and get off then you lose your bitch license. It's too bad, we almost had an open dialog there.

You're like a crickety old candy store owner that sees a ten year old kid come in, browse, and leave with nothing. You're sure he stole something but can't prove it.

Admit it, if your allegations are true, at this point you're no better then Bush because you're stooping to the same level. You're condeming someone for something with no proof. If that is true congratulations, you and Bush are brothers at heart. The bad news is you'll probably not get any of the family money.

It's too bad, we almost had an open dialog there.

[Cochise]

ROFL

If some of the posters here were in one of those table-top card games, they'd get a +20 to agility.

[stevieray]

Being proud of my country's heritage is exactly why I'm so embarrassed by the Bush Administration.
How convienent for you, considering our forefathers had no clue how this country would turn out...bet you're real proud of the slavery part of our heritage. oh, I forgot, you give away free passes to anyone other than Bush.

You ignore the fact that you think the whole system is dishonest and INCAPABLE of backing your bogus claims, but four or five women could bring down an adulterer.

:rolleyes:

[stevieray]

And I was responding to someone that accused me of being embarrassed about my country which is absolutely false. I simply pointed out the difference between being embarrassed about my country and being embarassed about the conduct of my government when conducting my country's official business.

In response to your comments; while Clinton's personal conduct was embarrassing it had nothing to do with the business of running our country as much as it did the republican's congress's obsession with exposing Clinton for being a slime for political gain, thereby, ultimately harming our country far more than helping it.

Damn, you are such a poser and victim. Noone said that you were embarassed by the country.


Congress' obsession? Clinton's obsession of screwing other women is what got him busted.

[RINGLEADER]

I have to give you a lot of credit for your diligence and thoroughness. While all of your points conveniently omit some very general ingredients, argumentatively, they serve your purpose.

However, one can not overlook the fact that all of this administration's ever shifting reasons for attacking Iraq have been debunked except for their last one, "spreading democracy."

Also, let's not forget that they did attempt to justify their WMD argument by intentionally using intelligence that had already been debunked by Joseph Wilson. If that attempt were not intentional why didn't they just fess up when caught instead of outing his wife, Valerie Plame.

So while the "you don't have any proof" crowd can continue to insist that this administration's motives are pure, the circumstantial evidence seems to be generating an enourmous pile of dung. At some point, it seems that something has to give. And if it does, the entire house of cards could come tumbling down in a most embarrassing and humiliating way for our country.

You're just wrong penchief.

The Joseph Wilson info turned out to NOT be debunked by two separate reports from two bi-partisan committees. Which throws an entirely different monkey-wrench into the "that was their reason for outing Valerie Plame" mystery that the left loves to embrace and throw at the doorstep of Bush.

And the reasons for going to war - at the time - were PARTIALLY because of WMDs and at the time all of the information from all of the sources that a president should be called upon to rely on supported the conclusion that there were WMDs. But even in their absence it wasn't the only reason given for going to war. Read the text of the document that served as the basis for us going to war in Iraq. It's all right there. Read it and point out to me where it says that we went to war just for WMDs or give me a document that shows that Bush "should have known better" prior to the war.

[RINGLEADER]

It's more like putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 4 but having the 5 crowd tell you that you can't trust your own logic because you don't have the proof.

I like you penchief. But I asked you to disprove 10 things (any one of which would be enough to debunk the "Bush Lied" mantra) that you recognize are facts and you somehow interpret them as saying 2+2=5 and evidence of a lack of proof on my part.

DISPROVE ANY OF THEM. And if you can't, please tell me how Bush could lie about his reasons for going to war if these facts are accurate. And don't give me changing reasons because the IWR covers the changes required in our defense posture after 9/11 (without claiming that Iraq was responsible for the attack as the left likes to say), that Saddam hasn't fulfilled UN resolutions, that he has been a threat to the region, and that his ability to transfer WMDs (which Saddam's own declarations indicated he had in March 2003) should be stopped.

[RINGLEADER]

Prove it. Prove it. Prove it. You guys sound like a broken record. Any true American would ask the logical questions that beg to be asked. To blindly ignore the swelling of circumstantial evidence only leads the rest of us to believe that too many people are willing to be sheep.

You don't have to rely on circumstantial evidence penchief when there are plenty of incontravertible facts. I know the facts don't support the conclusions you want to reach, but saying we should push aside real facts to get at "possible" facts is just whacked. So either disprove the facts I posted earlier (I only posted ten...it should be easy) or show how Bush could have lied if ANY of them are true. Bush doesn't just start out automatically guilty because your "circumstantial" facts might support a contorted conclusion that the real facts disprove.

Sorry, but you have to do better.

It's amazing that the left can get as far as they do in the mass delusion that Bush lied to start the war in Iraq. And it's equally amazing that the left sees people who actually go to the trouble of supporting the facts behind their position as "sheep".

Just don't get it...

[RINGLEADER]

In response to your comments; while Clinton's personal conduct was embarrassing it had nothing to do with the business of running our country as much as it did the republican's congress's obsession with exposing Clinton for being a slime for political gain, thereby, ultimately harming our country far more than helping it.


That's not entirely true. But even if you put aside how Clinton shelved decisions so he could get blown you have to also rest the blame for what happened entirely on someone else's shoulders to explain away the gridlock that his actions caused.

I still believe that if the GOP hadn't overplayed the Starr Report and the grand jury testimony the Dems would have gotten destroyed at the ballot box in 98 and Clinton would have been gone the next year. Because the imagination of the public was a lot worse than what actually happened.

The irony there is I don't think - given how the 2000 election turned out - that Bush would have beaten an incumbant Gore who had been president for two years.

[RINGLEADER]

A coalition that included Britian, Spain, and a handful of bribed third-world countries? That's some coalition.

Anyway, why would they sit on evidence that exhonerates them? I doubt very seriously anyone here would expect them to do that. Of course, as soon as they come up with something they can twist to make themselves look better, they'll use it. We all know they'll do that just as they have tried before.


I seem to remember quite a few countries in Saddam's backyard. And Turkey (until the legislature performed a dog-ass procedural move to void the "aye" response to supporting the war). And Australia. And Japan. And Italy. And Poland. And South Korea.

During the 91 "mighty coalition" the US comprised approximately 76% of the total force deployment. In the Iraq War coalition of "bribed nations" we comprised 82% of the force. We actually had most of the same countries as the 91 invasion that everyone holds up as the definition of a great coalition (even people like John Kerry who were opposed to that war). The only countries from the 91 "mighty coalition" not participating now are Argentina, Banghladesh, Canada, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hondouras, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Portugal, Senagal, Syria, and the UAE. Currently serving in Iraq are many other countries that didn't participate in the earlier action.

Not having France and Germany and Egypt and Syria shouldn't be the dividing line between an acceptable coalition or a "bribed" coalition IMO.

[patteeu]

Holy Cow, Bangledesh doesn't support us? That changes everything!

[jettio]

B*sh did not win the day at the last Security Council vote, he claimed that the only way to prevent Saddam's WOMD was to invade immediately.

He was wrong.

And anyone that thinks B*sh was honestly afraid of Saddam and that there was no other option is a simply simple wingtard.

$250+ Billion dollars, 1700+ Americans lives, 20,000+ US warriors permanently maimed, and 100,000+ Iraqis dead.

The folks on the security council that said that there was a better option have been proven correct.

B*sh is a lying sack of Raiders, that has been established, the worse problem is that he can take the best military in the world and f*ck up a wet dream.

[RINGLEADER]

B*sh did not win the day at the last Security Council vote, he claimed that the only way to prevent Saddam's WOMD was to invade immediately.

He was wrong.

And anyone that thinks B*sh was honestly afraid of Saddam and that there was no other option is a simply simple wingtard.


Putting aside for a moment your attempt to focus on one aspect of the question that was confronting us after 9/11 vis-a-vis Iraq to the exclusion of all other facts, please explain to me how previous attempts to deal with Saddam for more than a decade had succeeded. Simply saying there were other options doesn't mean they would have been any more successful - but if you have them let us know. Kerry was droning on all election about how he had a "better, smarter plan for Iraq" but since the election I haven't heard one peep out of him about this grand plan to save American lives. Please do tell if you have the answer.

BTW, I've never said that invasion was the only way to deal with the problem of Iraq. But sanctions weren't working. Regime change, thanks to Bill Clinton, was the law of our land. And after 9/11 it wasn't unreasonable to act decisively against the threat of having WMDs fall from a nation state without regard to neighbors, a nation state that had used them in the past, and a nation state that had previous dealings with Al Qaeda.

Sure, we could have dealt with Iraq the way Clinton dealt with Iraq (and accomplish nothing) or North Korea (where the situation was made much worse through a lack of doubt in the NK's compliance of the Agreed Framework). That's just a difference in how you and I, how conservatives and liberals, think about some defense issues. I think confrontation of evil is a much more productive exercise - as we saw in how Reagan dealt with the Soviets - than containment. Especially after 9/11 showed how ineffective containment can be.

Not saying your beliefs are right or mine are wrong...just saying I don't agree with your POV on this issue. I'm backing it up with the facts that Bush did not lie to go to war in Iraq. If you can prove otherwise take any of the ten points I made earlier and disprove them. Because if any of those ten points are true he couldn't have lied to go to war.

[Cochise]

Keep effing doubting Senegal! :cuss:

Actually, not having France on your side is probably an advantage in military conflict. Maybe they are actually helping us even more than last time.

[Duck Dog]

Could someone please point out to me where the proof is that this was/is an illegal war?

I've looked, and haven't seen any proof. I've read a bunch of biased opinions from people who oppose any war, but have yet to find any proof that supports this theory.

[Taco John]

Could someone please point out to me where the proof is that this was/is an illegal war?

I've looked, and haven't seen any proof. I've read a bunch of biased opinions from people who oppose any war, but have yet to find any proof that supports this theory.


Well, I for one support an investigation to either debunk or legitimize this war once and for all. I think there are enough questions about the build up to the war to make it worth the effort. I, personally, would like to see this type of investigation take place, as I was one who initially supported the war on the basis of WMDs. There are other reasons that I see for us being over there, including IRAN, however, WMDs were the straw that broke the camels back for me. I'd like an official answer on this thing once and for all... Whatever that answer may be.

[Duck Dog]

Well, I for one support an investigation to either debunk or legitimize this war once and for all. I think there are enough questions about the build up to the war to make it worth the effort. I, personally, would like to see this type of investigation take place, as I was one who initially supported the war on the basis of WMDs. There are other reasons that I see for us being over there, including IRAN, however, WMDs were the straw that broke the camels back for me. I'd like an official answer on this thing once and for all... Whatever that answer may be.


I agree even though there are many reasons other than WMD's to go to war.

Another good investigation would be; where are the WMD's we knew they had and who has them now.

[penchief]

Strike 3.

First, you have not proven Bush is guilty of anything other then leading the nation during a critical time.

For you to compare that with a President that takes an oath and then perjures himself proves you are partisan beyond help. If you are willing to let any President lie to you and get off then you lose your bitch license. It's too bad, we almost had an open dialog there.

You're like a crickety old candy store owner that sees a ten year old kid come in, browse, and leave with nothing. You're sure he stole something but can't prove it.

Admit it, if your allegations are true, at this point you're no better then Bush because you're stooping to the same level. You're condeming someone for something with no proof. If that is true congratulations, you and Bush are brothers at heart. The bad news is you'll probably not get any of the family money.

It's too bad, we almost had an open dialog there.

The only difference between Bill Clinton's past and George Bush's past is a republican congress and Kenneth Starr.

I love how you guys keep twisting the argument. The debate over who is being hypocritical is moot because, if the Clinton apologists are so are the Bush apologists. If the right-wing in this country had not pursued issues that were irrelevent to the execution of the president's duties in the first place, we never would have gotten to the point where Clinton lied.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself but I have never condoned Clinton's perjury. You guys just love to jump on this shit because it is such a great diversion from Bush's poor behavior. I could tell you that I hated Clinton's guts and it wouldn't make a bit of difference to you because that's not what you're interested in. Either you just want to evade the real issues surrounding Bush or you are incapable of making a distinction of any sort.

Your game is to win every argument by pointing the finger of hypocricy instead of addressing the issues at hand. And Clinton always seems to be your 9/11 trump card. You can't even admit that the circumstances with which each one had to operate under is as different as night and day. Including the degree of light which is cast on their behavior.

I would go one step further and say that the only difference between George Bush's presidency and Richard Nixon's presidency is Archibald Cox.

Now, can we get back to the questionable behavior of this president in the execution of his duties as opposed to accusing those who disagree with that conduct as being hypocrites?

I'm no less a hypocrite than any of you who refuse to ask the logical questions surrounding this president's conduct. Just because Bush has the luxury of being insulated by a republican controlled legislature doesn't mean he's not guilty of anything.

Strike one, strike two, strike three. I'm out. How elequent. You guys are so right. I guess there's nothing here to see. Let's just fold up our tents and let the ideolgoues continue to ram their agenda down our throats without scrutiny. Isn't that the American way? Is that what being a patriot is all about? I suppose to the right-wing in this country, it is.

I curse the day Bill Clinton became president because so many of you seem to believe it gives right-wing Bush apologists a free pass when it comes to accountability.

[penchief]

How convienent for you, considering our forefathers had no clue how this country would turn out...bet you're real proud of the slavery part of our heritage. oh, I forgot, you give away free passes to anyone other than Bush.

You ignore the fact that you think the whole system is dishonest and INCAPABLE of backing your bogus claims, but four or five women could bring down an adulterer.

:rolleyes:

One of the great things about our country's heritage has been it's recongition for the need to do better. To continue progress in pursuit of our professed values. Our history is the evolution of humanity and liberty.

Some on the right seem content to harvest the regressive ideals of greed, power for power's sake, and nationalism. All of which are counter-productive to our heritage and our values.

IMHO.

[Logical]

Could someone please point out to me where the proof is that this was/is an illegal war?

I've looked, and haven't seen any proof. I've read a bunch of biased opinions from people who oppose any war, but have yet to find any proof that supports this theory.

Wouldn't that take an investigation? So can we mark you down as in favor of an investigation so it can be either proven or debunked?

[mlyonsd]

The only difference between Bill Clinton's past and George Bush's past is a republican congress and Kenneth Starr.

I love how you guys keep twisting the argument. The debate over who is being hypocritical is moot because, if the Clinton apologists are so are the Bush apologists. If the right-wing in this country had not pursued issues that were irrelevent to the execution of the president's duties in the first place, we never would have gotten to the point where Clinton lied.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself but I have never condoned Clinton's perjury. You guys just love to jump on this shit because it is such a great diversion from Bush's poor behavior. I could tell you that I hated Clinton's guts and it wouldn't make a bit of difference to you because that's not what you're interested in. Either you just want to evade the real issues surrounding Bush or you are incapable of making a distinction of any sort.

Your game is to win every argument by pointing the finger of hypocricy instead of addressing the issues at hand. And Clinton always seems to be your 9/11 trump card. You can't even admit that the circumstances with which each one had to operate under is as different as night and day. Including the degree of light which is cast on their behavior.

I would go one step further and say that the only difference between George Bush's presidency and Richard Nixon's presidency is Archibald Cox.

Now, can we get back to the questionable behavior of this president in the execution of his duties as opposed to accusing those who disagree with that conduct as being hypocrites?

I'm no less a hypocrite than any of you who refuse to ask the logical questions surrounding this president's conduct. Just because Bush has the luxury of being insulated by a republican controlled legislature doesn't mean he's not guilty of anything.

Strike one, strike two, strike three. I'm out. How elequent. You guys are so right. I guess there's nothing here to see. Let's just fold up our tents and let the ideolgoues continue to ram their agenda down our throats without scrutiny. Isn't that the American way? Is that what being a patriot is all about? I suppose to the right-wing in this country, it is.

I curse the day Bill Clinton became president because so many of you seem to believe it gives right-wing Bush apologists a free pass when it comes to accountability.

First, you accuse me of bringing Clinton into the argument when in reality you did with post #35. My posts leading up to that point were to point out you were just speculating Bush's guilt with no proof.

One thing about Clinton though since you brought it up. If you honestly thought Clinton should have stepped down when it was proven he committed perjury then you can say you didn't condone it. If you take the stance it was only a Republican witch hunt and his crime was not an impeachable offense then you are condoning it. The man should have done one of two honorable things...told the truth or stepped down realizing he had compromised the public trust. Period. Remember, I'm not the one that brought Clinton up here BTW, you were.

Enough of that crap, thanks for leading us down that unproductive road.

I'm the one that told you to keep searching for facts that Bush lied. Knock yourself out, it's your right. But anytime you flaunt speculation as fact I'm going to call you on it. That's all I did in this thread. I never said the jury was out, I was only implying you needed facts before I'll agree with you.

But I think we're in trouble on that....if you can't see Clinton's crime as a reason for removal but want to hang Bush because all you can accuse him of is leading the nation we'll never get anywhere. That's where strike 3 comes from. I was hoping for some dialog with someone on the left that could discuss issues honestly.

[penchief]

First, you accuse me of bringing Clinton into the argument when in reality you did with post #35. My posts leading up to that point were to point out you were just speculating Bush's guilt with no proof.

One thing about Clinton though since you brought it up. If you honestly thought Clinton should have stepped down when it was proven he committed perjury then you can say you didn't condone it. If you take the stance it was only a Republican witch hunt and his crime was not an impeachable offense then you are condoning it. The man should have done one of two honorable things...told the truth or stepped down realizing he had compromised the public trust. Period. Remember, I'm not the one that brought Clinton up here BTW, you were.

Enough of that crap, thanks for leading us down that unproductive road.

I'm the one that told you to keep searching for facts that Bush lied. Knock yourself out, it's your right. But anytime you flaunt speculation as fact I'm going to call you on it. That's all I did in this thread. I never said the jury was out, I was only implying you needed facts before I'll agree with you.

But I think we're in trouble on that....if you can't see Clinton's crime as a reason for removal but want to hang Bush because all you can accuse him of is leading the nation we'll never get anywhere. That's where strike 3 comes from. I was hoping for some dialog with someone on the left that could discuss issues honestly.

I didn't bring Clinton up...one of your buddies did. The "how ironic coming from a Clinton supporter" card was played. Once the cat is out of the bag it seems that all of you jump on the bandwagon.

I never said Clinton should have stepped down. And I'm not suggesting that Bush should either, if it is determined that he intentionally played games with the public's trust.

The pursuit of Clinton WAS a republican witch-hunt wich began with the Arkansas Project. But that, in no way, absolves Clinton of perjury. The witch-hunt led to the perjury but both were equally disgusting and equally harmfull to the country. The republicans should not get off scott-free for their intentional efforts to derail the country's business soley for political gain. Clinton certainly didn't.

As far as facts go......it is not in my hands. I depend on those responsible for seeking the truth to do so. That includes congress. Unfortunately, we will never get facts until those who are responsible to the public decide that the integrity of our government is more important than political power.

Again, no one can say with a straight face that Bush's every move is scrutinized in the same manner as was Clinton's. Give me a democratically controlled legislature obsessed with pettiness and hatred, a bloodthirst for character assassination, and a liberal version of Kenneth Starr and I might might be able to produce something that will stick.

The problem is that there is good reason to be concerned about the conduct of this administration. All I want is a fair and balanced account of what has happened. Not hypocritical counter-attacks and stonewalling.

[jettio]

Putting aside for a moment your attempt to focus on one aspect of the question that was confronting us after 9/11 vis-a-vis Iraq to the exclusion of all other facts, please explain to me how previous attempts to deal with Saddam for more than a decade had succeeded. Simply saying there were other options doesn't mean they would have been any more successful - but if you have them let us know. Kerry was droning on all election about how he had a "better, smarter plan for Iraq" but since the election I haven't heard one peep out of him about this grand plan to save American lives. Please do tell if you have the answer.

BTW, I've never said that invasion was the only way to deal with the problem of Iraq. But sanctions weren't working. Regime change, thanks to Bill Clinton, was the law of our land. And after 9/11 it wasn't unreasonable to act decisively against the threat of having WMDs fall from a nation state without regard to neighbors, a nation state that had used them in the past, and a nation state that had previous dealings with Al Qaeda.

Sure, we could have dealt with Iraq the way Clinton dealt with Iraq (and accomplish nothing) or North Korea (where the situation was made much worse through a lack of doubt in the NK's compliance of the Agreed Framework). That's just a difference in how you and I, how conservatives and liberals, think about some defense issues. I think confrontation of evil is a much more productive exercise - as we saw in how Reagan dealt with the Soviets - than containment. Especially after 9/11 showed how ineffective containment can be.

Not saying your beliefs are right or mine are wrong...just saying I don't agree with your POV on this issue. I'm backing it up with the facts that Bush did not lie to go to war in Iraq. If you can prove otherwise take any of the ten points I made earlier and disprove them. Because if any of those ten points are true he couldn't have lied to go to war.

You could use a lot less words to say that you do not have enough brains, sense, or honor to question the guy you "root" for when he proves himself to be a phony f*ck-up.

You ought to spend a little less time in your cheerleader skirt and a little more time in the library.

[Logical]

You could use a lot less words to say that you do not have enough brains, sense, or honor to question the guy you "root" for when he proves himself to be a phony f*ck-up.

You ought to spend a little less time in your cheerleader skirt and a little more time in the library.Brutal but a kernal of truth lies within, kind of what I meant when I said he spends to much time being a shill.

[stevieray]

One of the great things about our country's heritage has been it's recongition for the need to do better. To continue progress in pursuit of our professed values. Our history is the evolution of humanity and liberty.

Some on the right seem content to harvest the regressive ideals of greed, power for power's sake, and nationalism. All of which are counter-productive to our heritage and our values.

IMHO.

Yup, we've fought for freedom from the British, fought ourselves for the freedom of slaves, we've been fighting for freedom our whole existence, including now. I find it disheartening to read your comment that it's "just "spreading democracy'. It is that. We are that. We will always be that. The World is a much better place for it.

The War on Terror is a World Problem. All the bashers want to make it a personal problem. You've been reduced to calling him a liar without merit.

[penchief]

You could use a lot less words to say that you do not have enough brains, sense, or honor to question the guy you "root" for when he proves himself to be a phony f*ck-up.

You ought to spend a little less time in your cheerleader skirt and a little more time in the library.

Damn, I wish I could be that succinct.

[Logical]

Damn, I wish I could be that succinct.You make an honest effort to not be rude, so it is unlikely you will ever succeed in the way Jettio did.

[penchief]

Yup, we've fought for freedom from the British, fought ourselves for the freedom of slaves, we've been fighting for freedom our whole existence, including now. I find it disheartening to read your comment that it's "just "spreading democracy'. It is that. We are that. We will always be that. The World is a much better place for it.

The War on Terror is a World Problem. All the bashers want to make it a personal problem. You've been reduced to calling him a liar without merit.

First off, your dishonesty is a disgrace. I never said "just" spreading democracy. As if you have the right to imply that I have belittled the importance of our democratic principles. People like you tend to throw in or delete a word so that you can enhance your own argument or cast a more positive light on yourself. You should be ashamed. Judging from both your and my rhetoric, I consider myself to be much more respectful of freedom than you.

It's true that our country has fought for freedom throughout it's history. Fighting for freedom's sake in it's pure form is a noble cause. Using the virtue of freedom as justification for the pursuit ideological goals or the post factum reasoning of aggressive war is not a noble venture, IMO.

The war on terror led us to the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, not Baghdad.

[stevieray]

First off, your dishonesty is a disgrace. I never said "just" spreading democracy. As if you have the right to imply that I have belittled the importance of democratic principles. People like you tend to throwin or delete a word so that you can enhance your own argument or cast a more positive light on yourself. You should be ashamed. Judging from both your and my rhetoric, I consider myself to be much more respectful of freedom than you.

It's true that our country has fought for freedom throughout it's history. Fighting for freedom's sake in it's pure form is a noble cause. Using the virtue of freedom as justification for the pursuit ideological goals or the post factum reasoning of aggressive war is not a noble venture, IMO.

The war on terror led us to the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, not Baghdad.

wow, emotion. truth hurt?

[penchief]

wow, emotion. truth hurt?

No. I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth so that you can look good in front of your homeys.

[penchief]

Could someone please point out to me where the proof is that this was/is an illegal war?

I've looked, and haven't seen any proof. I've read a bunch of biased opinions from people who oppose any war, but have yet to find any proof that supports this theory.

There is no proof yet. But there is enough doubt and enough questions to legitimize an honest and open inquiry into the facts and the truth.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that not one single thing that has been questioned concerning the conduct or the patterns surrounding this administration has ever been pursued to resolution?

[stevieray]

No. I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth so that you can look good in front of your homeys.
Weak. Unlike you, I'm not motivated by what others think. Yet another excuse you use now and with the WAR..., you only give crednce to negativity, while disregarding what the FREE people of Iraq think. did you or did you not say that me and my homeys defense has been reduced to say ing the War was about spreading democracy, because no WMD were found?

You because you are driven by emotion and a personal problem with Bush, shown by your unproven character assisination, rather than reason... illustrated by our country's ongoing fight for freedom. Freedom from terror, made mandatory since 9/11.

When you think about it...it makes sense we would have to continue the fire we started...though I wonder if the founding fathers knew their vision would end up putting the burden on us over 200 years later. Maybe so.

[Logical]

wow, emotion. truth hurt?Well Stevieray upon review the original post (unless I missed another where you are getting this from) Penchief did not say anything about spreading democracy. So it would appear you might be the one who has missed the truth and is reacting emotionally.

One of the great things about our country's heritage has been it's recongition for the need to do better. To continue progress in pursuit of our professed values. Our history is the evolution of humanity and liberty.

Some on the right seem content to harvest the regressive ideals of greed, power for power's sake, and nationalism. All of which are counter-productive to our heritage and our values.

IMHO.

While I don't agree that even the generalization that some on the right seem content to harvest the ideals of greed, power for power's sake and nationalism. It is certainly IMO true for some people such as Karl Rove. Again I see nothing in that post negative being expressed towards democracy.

[stevieray]

Well Stevieray upon review the original post (unless I missed another where you are getting this from) Penchief did not say anything about spreading democracy. So it would appear you might be the one who has missed the truth and is reacting emotionally.


Reacting emotionally would be another gay bait thread.

[Logical]

First off, your dishonesty is a disgrace. I never said "just" spreading democracy. As if you have the right to imply that I have belittled the importance of our democratic principles. People like you tend to throw in or delete a word so that you can enhance your own argument or cast a more positive light on yourself. You should be ashamed. Judging from both your and my rhetoric, I consider myself to be much more respectful of freedom than you.

It's true that our country has fought for freedom throughout it's history. Fighting for freedom's sake in it's pure form is a noble cause. Using the virtue of freedom as justification for the pursuit ideological goals or the post factum reasoning of aggressive war is not a noble venture, IMO.

The war on terror led us to the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, not Baghdad.

I see nothing about you and your homey's in this post.

The only reference I have found to homeys regarding you is the following:

Originally Posted by penchief
No. I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth so that you can look good in front of your homeys. I think I have read all of the exchange and I am clearly not reading what you imply penchief as having said.

[Logical]

Reacting emotionally would be another gay bait thread.ROFL Like you do not know me well enough to know that is not going to bother me in the slightest. Nice try though.:p

[penchief]

Weak. Unlike you, I'm not motivated by what others think. Yet another excuse you use now and with the WAR..., you only give crednce to negativity, while disregarding waht the FREE people of Iraq think. did you or did you not say that me and my homeys defense has been reduced to say ing the War was about spreading democracy, because no WMD were found?

You because you are driven by emotion and a personal problem with Bush, shown by your unproven character assisination, rather than reason... illustrated by our country's ongoing fight for freedom. Freedom from terror, made mandatory since 9/11.

When you think about it...it makes sense we would have to continue the fire we started...though I wonder if the founding fathers knew their vision would end up putting the burden on us over 200 years later. Maybe so.

Well, if I were concerned what others thought I wouldn't be posting my sincere political beliefs on a board where I'm outnumberd 10 to 1.

On the other hand, if you weren't concerned with how others on this board view you, you wouldn't falsely characterize others' comments in order to boost your esteem.

Regardless of what you think, I am an optimist. I am a positive thinker. Accepting dishonesty, aggression, and destruction is cynical...not hopeful. I have hope for the future.

Do you really think that the people of Baghdad feel "free" right now? While I do agree with the revised stated goals of the Bush Administration and the hope of the Iraqi people, I don't believe that this administration's ulterior motives have changed. IMO, the goal is the same (occupation of Iraq) but the justification has repeatedly changed in order to more palliate public opinion.

I don't have a personal problem with George W. Bush, I have a fundamental problem with the Bush Administration.

For the right-wing to accuse the left of character assassination is unbelievable considering the last three decades of American politics.

As far as our founding father go, please don't use their virtue to justify the ideological goals of this administration. Fighting for our own independence is far different than our invading a sovereign nation for the purpose of imposing the neocons' agenda.

[stevieray]

Well, if I were concerned what others thought I wouldn't be posting my sincere political beliefs on a board where I'm outnumberd 10 to 1.

On the other hand, if you weren't concerned with how others on this board view you, you wouldn't falsely characterize others' comments in order to boost your esteem.

Regardless of what you think, I am an optimist. I am a positive thinker. Accepting dishonesty, aggression, and destruction is cynical...not hopeful. I have hope for the future.

Do you really think that the people of Baghdad feel "free" right now? While I do agree with the revised stated goals of the Bush Administration and the hope of the Iraqi people, I don't believe that this administration's ulterior motives have changed. IMO, the goal is the same (occupation of Iraq) but the justification has repeatedly changed in order to more palliate public opinion.

I don't have a personal problem with George W. Bush, I have a fundamental problem with the Bush Administration.

For the right-wing to accuse the left of character assassination is unbelievable considering the last three decades of American politics.

As far as our founding father go, please don't use their virtue to justify the ideological goals of this administration. Fighting for our own independence is far different than our invading a sovereign nation for the purpose of imposing the neocons' agenda.

victim much?

[penchief]

victim much?

I don't think my reply to your inane accusations portrays me as being a victim at all. Funny, it seems like some of you have these one liners that you use when you don't have a legitimate response. They're almost automatic for some of you.

You know which ones I mean:

"Victim much?"

"Coming from a Clinton supporter"

"How ironic coming from a Clinton supporter"

"It must be miserable to be you"

"Get a life"

"liar"

Etc.

[RINGLEADER]

Well, I for one support an investigation to either debunk or legitimize this war once and for all. I think there are enough questions about the build up to the war to make it worth the effort. I, personally, would like to see this type of investigation take place, as I was one who initially supported the war on the basis of WMDs. There are other reasons that I see for us being over there, including IRAN, however, WMDs were the straw that broke the camels back for me. I'd like an official answer on this thing once and for all... Whatever that answer may be.


Fair enough. But if the CIA, British Intelligence, the head of the UN, Saddam's generals and Saddam's own declarations of what he had to the UN all indicated that he had WMDs, and if the reasons for going to war - as stipulated in the only document that sets forth said reasons - includes much more than just WMDs and if that document was approved by a bi-partisan majority of both houses of congress then how can you either a) claim that Iraq not having WMDs is Bush's fault if you originally supported the war on that basis or b) claim that Bush lied about the reasons for going to war?

I REALLY don't want to get into a tiff with you...just asking for you to explain how Bush could have lied or why Bush should be responsible for not knowing what the UN, the CIA, and Saddam's own generals didn't know.

[jettio]

You make an honest effort to not be rude, so it is unlikely you will ever succeed in the way Jettio did.

I adapted my posting style when I saw the way the folks bum-rushed penchief when he was a newbie. I started out more like him, but now I just lay Ronnie-Lott style doses of truth on the deceived fools who dare to venture into the territory.

:drool:

[RINGLEADER]

You could use a lot less words to say that you do not have enough brains, sense, or honor to question the guy you "root" for when he proves himself to be a phony f*ck-up.

You ought to spend a little less time in your cheerleader skirt and a little more time in the library.


And you could disprove one - just one - of the ten facts I presented earlier. I think a lot more can be drawn from your inability to do so...

[RINGLEADER]

Brutal but a kernal of truth lies within, kind of what I meant when I said he spends to much time being a shill.


I like you Vlad. You make me laugh.

[jettio]

And you could disprove one - just one - of the ten facts I presented earlier. I think a lot more can be drawn from your inability to do so...

I try to keep it so that I get paid to prove stuff, but a brief glance at a ten item list that I see you have posted in the thread, is asking one to confine onself to the Downing Street memo as a means of disproving various facts.

Those facts primarily detail that B*sh managed to con a lot of fools into agreeing to stuff that could later be exploited against them when they later come to realize that the whole endeavor was a farce.

I never had any fear at all that Saddam was going to establish West Mesopotamia on the shores of the Gitche Gumee.

But you are right, B*sh set up a whole lot of suckers into going along with various steps along the road into headlong folly. Most have since realized that they were duped. Some just keep on being suckers.

[penchief]

And you could disprove one - just one - of the ten facts I presented earlier. I think a lot more can be drawn from your inability to do so...


And therein lies the problem with your ten facts. Currently, they can't be proven or disproven.

While it easy for you to say that the burden of proof is on us who are concerned with the conduct of those who represent us through government, it would be just as simplistic for us to say that those who represent us through government should be completely transparent in their conduct.

Clearly, governmental transparency is not a characteristic of the Bush White House. It could be argued that this administration is the most secretive in modern history while at the same time being the most intrusive.

You can't simultaneously advocate that proof be offered up and support an administration that stonewalls and impedes the search for that proof.

[Logical]

...

I REALLY don't want to get into a tiff with you...just asking for you to explain how Bush could have lied or why Bush should be responsible for not knowing what the UN, the CIA, and Saddam's own generals didn't know.I think any objective individual would say there are sufficient questions about the information that was definitely known at the time (and yes by the CiA among others) to seriously question whether the Iraqi's had WMD. The question is not whether the possiblity he lied exists. The question is whether the information was passed to Bush prior to our entering the war and he chose to cover it up (lie).

[go bowe]

I think any objective individual would say there are sufficient questions about the information that was definitely known at the time (and yes by the CiA among others) to seriously question whether the Iraqi's had WMD. The question is not whether the possiblity he lied exists. The question is whether the information was passed to Bush prior to our entering the war and he chose to cover it up (lie).i agree with your analysis, but wonder if "lie" is the right verb...

imo, politicians in general and presidents in particular always shade their interpretation/presentation of "the facts" (facts and expert opinions) to buttress their political objectives...

this is not necessarily a bad thing...

but if all the things that have been said by the lefties are true, the president might have gone a little too far in pitching the war, since it involved a decision that cost lives and national treasure, rather than some less weighty matter such as tort reform...

i guess i'm still waiting to see what ends up being proven before i decide if the president actually "lied" in my view...

[Logical]

i agree with your analysis, but wonder if "lie" is the right verb...

imo, politicians in general and presidents in particular always shade their interpretation/presentation of "the facts" (facts and expert opinions) to buttress their political objectives...

this is not necessarily a bad thing...

but if all the things that have been said by the lefties are true, the president might have gone a little too far in pitching the war, since it involved a decision that cost lives and national treasure, rather than some less weighty matter such as tort reform...

i guess i'm still waiting to see what ends up being proven before i decide if the president actually "lied" in my view...I definitely am not yet ready to say he has lied, but I am ready for a full on investigation to either prove the admininstrations innocence or guilt. It is time to get on with it and name a special prosecutor.

[jAZ]

Fair enough. But if the CIA, British Intelligence, the head of the UN, Saddam's generals and Saddam's own declarations of what he had to the UN all indicated that he had WMDs, and if the reasons for going to war - as stipulated in the only document that sets forth said reasons - includes much more than just WMDs and if that document was approved by a bi-partisan majority of both houses of congress then how can you either a) claim that Iraq not having WMDs is Bush's fault if you originally supported the war on that basis or b) claim that Bush lied about the reasons for going to war?

I REALLY don't want to get into a tiff with you...just asking for you to explain how Bush could have lied or why Bush should be responsible for not knowing what the UN, the CIA, and Saddam's own generals didn't know.
You've repeated this drivel before. None of it is relevant to the single major concern that I've expressed repeatedly for years now. The same thing that you've never addressed even once.

The fact that the Bush administration reported rewrote the report to Congress when it was declassified for review by members of Congress. In this rewritten version, the Bush adminsitration removed all language that would cast doubt on their conclusions and only allowed congress to see the evidence that supported their argument for war.

That original report is still classified and therefore unable to be investigated properly.

All of the other claims that you made (in particular the claims of "a bi-partisan majority of both houses of congress" are meaningless. Entirely meaningless.

[Ugly Duck]

you only give crednce to negativity, while disregarding what the FREE people of Iraq think. Thanks to a recent poll, we actually do have a handle of what the FREE people of Iraq think:

45 percent support the insurgents.

15 percent strongly support the coalition forces.

[mlyonsd]

Ok, so for fun let's assume Bush is hiding all the informational intelligience that overwhelmingly proves Iraq no longer had WMD and/or where they went.

Can someone explain to me why another country that decided not to join the coalition didn't expose at least some of that intelligience? At least enough of it to prove their case?

[patteeu]

I think any objective individual would say there are sufficient questions about the information that was definitely known at the time (and yes by the CiA among others) to seriously question whether the Iraqi's had WMD. The question is not whether the possiblity he lied exists. The question is whether the information was passed to Bush prior to our entering the war and he chose to cover it up (lie).

What credible evidence do we have that this is the case? And I'm not talking about dissenting views within the intelligence community which are always there. I'm talking about something on the level of clear and convincing evidence that Saddam didn't have WMD. An objective individual would admit that there is no such credible evidence.

The Congress (you know them, they are the people's representatives in our representative government) investigated the pre-war intelligence and did not come to the conclusion that Bush had reason to believe Iraq was free of WMD before the war. Why isn't that good enough for you? I have to presume you either have an anti-Bush agenda of your own or you want to avoid an appearance of being a shill for Bush in the eyes of his critics.

[patteeu]

And therein lies the problem with your ten facts. Currently, they can't be proven or disproven.

Take another look, most of them CAN be proven or disproven. And every one of them that can falls in favor of the premise Ringleader is advancing.

But your comment is interesting nonetheless, because you are essentially admitting that you don't have a solid foundation for your belief that Bush lied us into war. Instead, you base your conclusion on speculation. It seems to me that the burden of proof is on you since we've got plenty of congressional oversight (including critical oversight) but yet we have no convincing evidence to support your speculations.

[jAZ]

Ok, so for fun let's assume Bush is hiding all the informational intelligience that overwhelmingly proves Iraq no longer had WMD and/or where they went.

Can someone explain to me why another country that decided not to join the coalition didn't expose at least some of that intelligience? At least enough of it to prove their case?
There you go setting up a fake argument so that you can defeat it. No one is saying that there was "lligience that overwhelmingly proves Iraq no longer had WMD". Everyone is saying that Bush cherry picked the inteligence that he put before the public and Congress. He selected the inteligence analysis that was useful and removed the intel and analysis that hurt his case the Iraq was a certain immediate threat with their WMD stockpiles and programs.

[Duck Dog]

I adapted my posting style when I saw the way the folks bum-rushed penchief when he was a newbie. I started out more like him, but now I just lay Ronnie-Lott style doses of truth on the deceived fools who dare to venture into the territory.

:drool:


ROFL What a self absorbed tool. What's even funnier is you're the only person who perceives you that way.

Where's the proof that this war is/was illegal?

[mlyonsd]

There you go setting up a fake argument so that you can defeat it. No one is saying that there was "lligience that overwhelmingly proves Iraq no longer had WMD". Everyone is saying that Bush cherry picked the inteligence that he put before the public and Congress. He selected the inteligence analysis that was useful and removed the intel and analysis that hurt his case the Iraq was a certain immediate threat with their WMD stockpiles and programs.

It's no more a fake argument then what you're suggesting. Saying Bush "cherry picked" is a fake argument.

Again, tell my why France/Germany/Russia didn't point to intelligience in front of the UN or the world media proving America was wrong? You don't want to address my question because it doesn't play into your scheme well, that's why.

All you're doing at this point is speculating. I didn't realize you had to apply for a speculating license let alone understand you were granted the only one.

[the Talking Can]

Yeah, we should have stopped bombing so it would be harder to fight.

:shake:

Anyway, can you point to the part of the Downing Street Memo that:

1. Shows Bush was responsible for enacting a policy of regime change in Iraq.

2. Shows Bush was not given information by the CIA prior to the run up to war that showed Saddam had WMDs.

3. Shows Bush did not go to the UN to get a resolution giving Saddam one final chance to reconcile his weapons declarations.

4. Shows that the resolution that Bush got at the UN didn't pass by a unanimous 15-0 vote.

5. Shows that Congress didn't authorize the invasion of Iraq on a bi-partisan vote.

6. Shows that the head of the UN didn't make the statement that "everyone knows Saddam has WMDs".

7. Shows that the head of the UN weapons insepction team didn't report to the Security Council in the weeks before the invasion of Iraq that Saddam had STILL not provided the disposition for tons of WMDs.

8. Shows why Saddam should have been believed when he said he destroyed tons of WMDs after UN inspectors were removed in 1998 after he had spent 7 years hiding those same weapons when the UN inspectors were actually in his country.

9. Shows how Bush could ignore information from Russian, England, and France that concluded that Saddam was harboring WMDs or plans to strike the US using proxies.

10. Shows how Bush could have lied about going into Iraq to stop them from using, giving or producing WMDs when Saddam's own generals believed the country held stockpiles of WMDs at the same time. Should Bush have somehow known something that Saddam's own military didn't?

And that's before we even get into the amount of time Saddam was given (12 years) to make good on his agreements made in the 91 armistice or the various bi-partisan committee reports that concluded that there HAD been high-level dialogue between Saddam's regime and Usama in the late 90s.

The fact that some on the left hold this document out as evidence that is strong enough to impeach Bush on borders on the laughable...unless you can disprove the facts presented above.


You need to take a course in logic. This list of "facts" has, basically, nothing to do with the issue of how Bush used pre-war intelligence. It only serves as evidence of how dishonest you really are (and of the fact you must be home schooled). Seriously, did you cut and paste that off of Limbaugh's website? (wait, I bet you copied it from micheal michigan's site....that explains it)

But, hey, an investigation could put your "questions" to rest...after, of course, they answered the relevant questions.

I'd like for you to tell me what Cheney's OSP was doing passing along Chalabi's ADMITTEDLY fake intelligence? And that's just for starters...

There is no doubt that the White House's use of intel pre-Iraq Invasion needs to be investigated. And there is no doubt it will never happen. You guys are Shameless (which is a French word meaning "Patteeu").

And from reading this thread, I'd have to say stupid, as well.

[Donger]

You need to take a course in logic. This list of "facts" has, basically, nothing to do with the issue of how Bush used pre-war intelligence. It only serves as evidence of how dishonest you really are (and of the fact you must be home schooled). Seriously, did you cut and paste that off of Limbaugh's website? (wait, I bet you copied it from micheal michigan's site....that explains it)

But, hey, an investigation could put your "questions" to rest...after, of course, they answered the relevant questions.

I'd like for you to tell me what Cheney's OSP was doing passing along Chalabi's ADMITTEDLY fake intelligence? And that's just for starters...

There is no doubt that the White House's use of intel pre-Iraq Invasion needs to be investigated. And there is no doubt it will never happen. You guys are Shameless (which is a French word meaning "Patteeu").

And from reading this thread, I'd have to say stupid, as well.

I presume that you have an issue with the Robb-Silberman report?

[Radar Chief]

You need to take a course in logic. This list of "facts" has, basically, nothing to do with the issue of how Bush used pre-war intelligence. It only serves as evidence of how dishonest you really are (and of the fact you must be home schooled). Seriously, did you cut and paste that off of Limbaugh's website? (wait, I bet you copied it from micheal michigan's site....that explains it)

But, hey, an investigation could put your "questions" to rest...after, of course, they answered the relevant questions.

I'd like for you to tell me what Cheney's OSP was doing passing along Chalabi's ADMITTEDLY fake intelligence? And that's just for starters...

There is no doubt that the White House's use of intel pre-Iraq Invasion needs to be investigated. And there is no doubt it will never happen. You guys are Shameless (which is a French word meaning "Patteeu").

And from reading this thread, I'd have to say stupid, as well.

:LOL: What is it about facts you’re afraid of?

[RINGLEADER]

And therein lies the problem with your ten facts. Currently, they can't be proven or disproven.


Um...yeah they can. Go to www.google.com. All the information supporting every point I made can be found in about three seconds.

[RINGLEADER]

I think any objective individual would say there are sufficient questions about the information that was definitely known at the time (and yes by the CiA among others) to seriously question whether the Iraqi's had WMD. The question is not whether the possiblity he lied exists. The question is whether the information was passed to Bush prior to our entering the war and he chose to cover it up (lie).


Well, when you can get over the hurdle of Saddam telling the UN in 1998 that he had tons of WMDs that he wouldn't let them destroy, toss in his past behavior, and mix in the unwillingness of Iraq to explain away the continued existence of those same WMDs when Saddam was given a final chance in his 2002 declarations I'll start contemplating such things.

I'm sorry but if a guy busts into a bank with a ski mask pointing a gun at the teller after the same guy had blown away people at the last three banks he'd visited I don't think he earns any sympathy if the security guard shoots him and his gun turns out to be empty.

[RINGLEADER]

You've repeated this drivel before. None of it is relevant to the single major concern that I've expressed repeatedly for years now. The same thing that you've never addressed even once.

The fact that the Bush administration reported rewrote the report to Congress when it was declassified for review by members of Congress. In this rewritten version, the Bush adminsitration removed all language that would cast doubt on their conclusions and only allowed congress to see the evidence that supported their argument for war.

That original report is still classified and therefore unable to be investigated properly.

All of the other claims that you made (in particular the claims of "a bi-partisan majority of both houses of congress" are meaningless. Entirely meaningless.

So my facts are "drivel" but your hidden report that may or may not make a material difference as it relates to what was given to congress trumps all?

And how exactly would an intelligence document (which, I'm not sure if you know this or not, are routinely edited before being disseminated) change the fact that the UN chief said Saddam had WMDs, that Saddam's declarations to the UN didn't account for TONS of WMDs, that the CIA told Bush (and Clinton before him) that Saddam had WMDs, or that the majority of the contents of the IRW stipulate reasons other than WMDs?

Sorry Jaz, but you should just be honest. You have ZERO evidence to disprove these facts. And the only come back you seem to have is that there may be a secret report that reveals something that you think may have made a difference to congress' approval of the IWR (which, again, if you'd bother to read it you'd find most of the WMD "lies" you like to cite missing). If you truly believe that then you didn't pay very close attention to the 2004 elections.

[RINGLEADER]

Ok, so for fun let's assume Bush is hiding all the informational intelligience that overwhelmingly proves Iraq no longer had WMD and/or where they went.

Can someone explain to me why another country that decided not to join the coalition didn't expose at least some of that intelligience? At least enough of it to prove their case?


Or, more importantly, why Bush should have set aside what the CIA told him, what foreign intelligence services were saying, what the UN chief was saying and - most importantly - what Saddam himself was saying (because if you tried to reconcile his declarations he refused to tell the UN what he had done with tons of the stuff just weeks before the war began).

Then again, I guess you could have just taken his word for it that he destroyed tons of WMDs on his own without the UN pressuring him after he had gone to great lengths to hide the stuff for seven years while the inspectors were actually there.

[RINGLEADER]

There you go setting up a fake argument so that you can defeat it. No one is saying that there was "lligience that overwhelmingly proves Iraq no longer had WMD". Everyone is saying that Bush cherry picked the inteligence that he put before the public and Congress. He selected the inteligence analysis that was useful and removed the intel and analysis that hurt his case the Iraq was a certain immediate threat with their WMD stockpiles and programs.


Prove it Jaz.

Show the link to the story that supports with facts what you wrote. I can prove my facts...let's see if you can come up with something other than your own desirous assumptions in secret documents that you have no earthly clue what they contain.

[RINGLEADER]

You need to take a course in logic. This list of "facts" has, basically, nothing to do with the issue of how Bush used pre-war intelligence. It only serves as evidence of how dishonest you really are (and of the fact you must be home schooled). Seriously, did you cut and paste that off of Limbaugh's website? (wait, I bet you copied it from micheal michigan's site....that explains it)


So I think I'm finally beginning to understand the liberal mantra on Bush and Iraq. It goes something like this:

Don't worry about facts...just ignore EVERYTHING that transpired before the war and pin everything on a "secret" document or "secret" meetings that you admit will never be made public so you can conveniently continue to make-believe that there actually are facts to support your point of view. It makes for great circular logic when, in truth, you have no idea whatsoever whether or not your hoped-for "evidence" is based on reality or, for that matter, even exists.

I think that comes perilously close to the dictionary description of delusional: "A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness".

[Taco John]

I'll be suprised if this ever turns into anything that lives up to the hype of it all...

[patteeu]

There is no doubt that the White House's use of intel pre-Iraq Invasion needs to be investigated. And there is no doubt it will never happen. You guys are Shameless (which is a French word meaning "Patteeu").

And from reading this thread, I'd have to say stupid, as well.

It's already been investigated. Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq (http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_rpt/ssci_iraq.pdf) (PDF - 24 MB)

Sincerly,
Shameless ROFL

[Donger]

It's already been investigated. Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq (http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_rpt/ssci_iraq.pdf) (PDF - 24 MB)

Sincerly,
Shameless ROFL

Well, that didn't give them the answers they wanted, did it?

[RINGLEADER]

It's already been investigated. Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq (http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_rpt/ssci_iraq.pdf) (PDF - 24 MB)

Sincerly,
Shameless ROFL

To be perfectly honest patteeu you're missing their point. It's not THIS report they're talking about. It's that special secret report that no one's written yet but if Bush would only let them it would reveal everything they've ever said about anything related to Bush (as long as it concludes he lied).

Seriously, now that I know where Jaz and Can are coming from it makes it much easier to understand their, um, "facts".

ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

[Donger]

It's already been investigated. Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq (http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_rpt/ssci_iraq.pdf) (PDF - 24 MB)

Sincerly,
Shameless ROFL

IX. Pressure on Intelligence Community Analysts Regarding Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Capabilities

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_rpt/ssci_pressure.pdf

Obviously all these folks are lying to protect Bush.

[Donger]

Seriously, now that I know where Jaz and Can are coming from it makes it much easier to understand their, um, "facts".

Never, ever, try to understand some liberals' thought processes. That road leads to ruin.

The same applies to females, BTW.

[mlyonsd]

Or, more importantly, why Bush should have set aside what the CIA told him, what foreign intelligence services were saying, what the UN chief was saying and - most importantly - what Saddam himself was saying (because if you tried to reconcile his declarations he refused to tell the UN what he had done with tons of the stuff just weeks before the war began).

Then again, I guess you could have just taken his word for it that he destroyed tons of WMDs on his own without the UN pressuring him after he had gone to great lengths to hide the stuff for seven years while the inspectors were actually there.

I'm just trying to create fake arguments to hide what truly transpired in the hopes it will confuse the non-believers.

I just got off the phone with Cheney and he suggested I try this route. Care to share your marching orders so we don't waste time/energy by duplicated efforts?

[Ugly Duck]

Well, that didn't give them the answers they wanted, did it?Remember this, folks? We got the report for Phase I on prewar intelligence assessments on Iraq which concluded that a series of failures led to the mischaracterization of intelligence. The Committee Chairman said he would hold off conducting Phase II until after the election. Phase II is the part of the investigation that looks into whether or not policymakers misused or mischaracterized information provided by the intelligence community. Well, the election is over now, so where is the rest of the report? I'll tell you - the chairman has decided not to finish the investigation. He ain't a gonna do Phase II which is supposed to investigate if Bushron misused or mischaracterized the intel that they got. So it ain't that we don't like the answers - ain't nobody even seen the answers cuz the committee chairman decided not to complete the investigation. How convenient for Bushron, eh? Check it out - dats da troof...

[Logical]

Remember this, folks? We got the report for Phase I on prewar intelligence assessments on Iraq which concluded that a series of failures led to the mischaracterization of intelligence. The Committee Chairman said he would hold off conducting Phase II until after the election. Phase II is the part of the investigation that looks into whether or not policymakers misused or mischaracterized information provided by the intelligence community. Well, the election is over now, so where is the rest of the report? I'll tell you - the chairman has decided not to finish the investigation. He ain't a gonna do Phase II which is supposed to investigate if Bushron misused or mischaracterized the intel that they got. So it ain't that we don't like the answers - ain't nobody even seen the answers cuz the committee chairman decided not to complete the investigation. How convenient for Bushron, eh? Check it out - dats da troof...You know I was amazed at the fact that there was no outrage in putting off phase II until after the election. Even I wonder how that is the right decision. If there are improprieties shouldn't they have been exposed before we re-elected the administration. I really do not understand how this was accepted so docilely (if that is a word)

[Boyceofsummer]

Remember this, folks? We got the report for Phase I on prewar intelligence assessments on Iraq which concluded that a series of failures led to the mischaracterization of intelligence. The Committee Chairman said he would hold off conducting Phase II until after the election. Phase II is the part of the investigation that looks into whether or not policymakers misused or mischaracterized information provided by the intelligence community. Well, the election is over now, so where is the rest of the report? I'll tell you - the chairman has decided not to finish the investigation. He ain't a gonna do Phase II which is supposed to investigate if Bushron misused or mischaracterized the intel that they got. So it ain't that we don't like the answers - ain't nobody even seen the answers cuz the committee chairman decided not to complete the investigation. How convenient for Bushron, eh? Check it out - dats da troof...

http://roberts.senate.gov/e-mail_pat.html

Ask him, no, demand phase II of the intelligence assessments on Iraq. I dare you! I will. This entire scam was all about the election. A very sad situation our country is entering now. Talk about phase II?

[Joe Seahawk]

cuz the committee chairman decided not to complete the investigation. How convenient for Bushron, eh? Check it out - dats da troof...

Last I heard they are still planning to do phase 2.. Maybe I'm wrong though. Got a link?

[Boyceofsummer]

http://backbonecampaign.org/Blog.cfm?ID=70

Senator Pat Roberts, (R-Kan.) Chairman, Intelligence Committee:
03/12/2005 Roger Fulton
Hi folks,

Remember when the Repuglies kept assuring everyone that "Phase 2" of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on prewar intelligence on Iraq (you know, the part that would deal with whether or not the Bush administration deliberately altered or massaged the intelligence data) would have to wait until after the 2004 election? Well, here we are now, well after the election, and, gosh durn it, wouldn't you just know, them Repugly fellers are not going to hold to their promise. SHOCKING!!!

First, here's a reminder about what the Repuglies promised:

===BEGIN EXCERPT===
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5409538

Transcript for July 11

NBC News
Updated: 11:18 a.m. ET July 11, 2004

Copyright(c) 2004, National Broadcasting Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

NBC News

MEET THE PRESS Sunday, July 11, 2004

Guests: Senator Pat Roberts, (R-Kan.) Chairman, Intelligence Committee

Senator Jay Rockefeller, (D-W.Va.) Vice Chairman, Intelligence Committee

MODERATOR/PANELIST: Tim Russert - NBC News

...

MR. RUSSERT: With all this being said, the second phase of your investigation as to whether or not the Bush administration deliberately altered, massaged the data, the intelligence in order to mislead the American people. Why shouldn't the American people have the benefit of your report before the November election?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Well, let's forget the election for a moment, and I know that sounds like a frivolous thing to say, but it needs to be made very clear here that--two things. Number one, I think, is the fact that Pat Roberts and I worked very closely together with a lot of pressure from people from both of our membership, colleagues.

SEN. ROBERTS: Yeah, we felt pressured.

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Yeah, we felt pressure to, you know, not do--put out this report that we did. Nevertheless, we were, in fact, under committee rules, and it was my hope from the very beginningýand we did not prevail because we are in the minority on the committee and in the Senate--to take up this whole question of what the administration said, what the administration did during this entire time. We actually only did prewar intelligence. That's all we did. The whole subject of what was the administration's role, what influence did they bring upon the American people, what pressure did they or did they not bring was never really gone into.

MR. RUSSERT: Why not, Senator?

SEN. ROBERTS: We agreed that our first mission was to get the report done that we, you know, had to do. I thought it could be done in six months. We hit a little bit of a rocky path at first. There were some politics involved and all of that. And then I said we ought to be able to do this in six months. Well, then it became nine months and then it became a year. Every member had their say. We had to work with the CIA, and as a result, our staffers had to go back thousands and thousands and thousands of pages to get it right. We are doing...

MR. RUSSERT: Was there any political--was there any political pressure from the White House not to do the second part...

SEN. ROBERTS: None. None.

MR. RUSSERT: ...of the investigation until after the election?

SEN. ROBERTS: None. And they didn't even know about the second part of the--and now this thing has morphed into a change as to whether or not the administration has magnified or has changed it or has manipulated it. The whole key was the use of intelligence. And so consequently that is ongoing right now, as I speak, by our staff, as well as a--other priority goal which is to get at the reform measures that we must do on a very careful and deliberate basis. But even as I'm speaking our staff is working on phase two and we will get it done.

MR. RUSSERT: Before the election?

SEN. ROBERTS: I don't know if we can get it done before the election. It is more important to get it right. Understand, too, that it is going to an independent commission after we get our work done. So we haven't heard the end of this by any means.

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Yeah. I absolutely agree with Pat Roberts that doing it right is more important than meeting the "election deadline." I've always felt that. I mean, there's enormous feeling about that out in the country. But we--our job is to do our work correctly. The report that we put out is the most extensive, most analytical report of the intelligence community that's been out, I think even including the Church report. It's respected. But we did not do the handling of intelligence, the use of intelligence, the misuse of intelligence. None of that did we do.

...
===END EXCERPT===
[The entire transcript is definitely worth reading.]

And now, here's the broken promise:

======================
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4856597,00.html
Senate Iraq-Intelligence Probe Nears End

Friday March 11, 2005 1:01 AM

By KATHERINE SHRADER

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Congress' investigation into prewar intelligence on Iraq is all but over, Senate Intelligence Chairman Pat Roberts signaled Thursday.

An aide to the Kansas Republican later said his comments were only meant as his personal views of the investigative challenges ahead.

The Senate Intelligence Committee produced a 511-page report last summer on flaws of the Iraq intelligence estimate assembled by the country's top analysts in October 2002, and promised a second phase would look at issues that couldn't be finalized in the first year of work.

Following a speech Thursday at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Roberts was asked whether the inquiry's second phase would be taken up this spring. He listed three main parts of the investigation and dismissed the merits of each:

-On whether the administration overstated Iraq intelligence in public remarks, Roberts said his committee could ask why officials made such strong, declarative statements about Iraq's weapons, but they would reply that their statements were based on ``bum intelligence.''

``To go through that exercise, it seems to me, in a postelection environment, we didn't see how we could do that and achieve any possible progress,'' he said. ``I think everybody pretty well gets it.''

-On whether the estimates regarding the postwar situation in Iraq were accurate, Roberts said the intelligence was ``all over the lot.'' For instance, he said a predicted humanitarian crisis from a wave of refugees proved wrong.

He said other issues before the committee take precedent over further study of Iraq intelligence, including the new national intelligence director, intelligence reform and ``pre-emptive oversight'' on North Korea, Iran and other areas.

-On whether the Office of Special Plans - an intelligence office reporting to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld - operated appropriately, Roberts said there was no evidence the office had a significant impact on the national intelligence estimate of October 2002, a document the administration relied on to help make the case for the invasion.

``I do think the secretary of defense is entitled to have the best intelligence that he deems possible, so we sort of came to a crossroads and that is basically on the back burner,'' he said.

Later in the day, Roberts' spokeswoman Sarah Little said the committee is still looking into issues saved for the inquiry's second phase. Roberts' comments were ``his personal view of the difficulties that the committee staff faces in engaging in phase two. He has ordered staff to follow every lead,'' Little said.

A congressional aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the committee has not yet determined whether there will be a report on the second phase. Some hold the view that much of the information uncovered hasn't caused significant concern, the aide said.

Democrats are expecting a report.

In a statement, Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the intelligence panel, said the committee is continuing to work on the second phase, and he expects it will be done in the near future.

``We must finish phase two of our investigation so that we can report to the American public and the intelligence community where additional mistakes may have been made so that we have an opportunity to fix them in the future,'' he said.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., another member of the intelligence panel, said the commitment to the second phase was clear and agreed upon by committee members. ``I'd be surprised if there were an effort to drop it,'' he said.
======================

Also:
Do listen to this Morning Edition report from yesterday (March 11):
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4530810

ISN'T ONE-PARTY RULE JUST GRAND?

[Ugly Duck]

You go, Boyce!

Here's a little indicator of how important the chairman of the committee thinks Phase II is. After turning in Phase I:

"I don't think there should be any doubt that we have now heard it all regarding prewar intelligence. I think that it would be a monumental waste of time to replow this ground any further." - Senator Roberts March 31, 2005

What he doesn't mention is that there is plenty of doubt. Gigantic, whopping truckloads of doubt. You know, the lack of WMD and the Downing Street Memos and all. Heck, 42% of Americans wanna impeach Duhbya if the evidence shows that he misled the nation about his reasons for going to war with Iraq. The Repubs wanna hide from them peeved Americans by not fullfilling their commitment to complete the investigation they are charged to do. Hey, if they believe that there is no evidence that would show up in Phase II, they should complete the investigation anyway just to convince Americans that they are not cheating liars.

[patteeu]

You go, Boyce!

Here's a little indicator of how important the chairman of the committee thinks Phase II is. After turning in Phase I:

"I don't think there should be any doubt that we have now heard it all regarding prewar intelligence. I think that it would be a monumental waste of time to replow this ground any further." - Senator Roberts March 31, 2005

What he doesn't mention is that there is plenty of doubt. Gigantic, whopping truckloads of doubt. You know, the lack of WMD and the Downing Street Memos and all. Heck, 42% of Americans wanna impeach Duhbya if the evidence shows that he misled the nation about his reasons for going to war with Iraq. The Repubs wanna hide from them peeved Americans by not fullfilling their commitment to complete the investigation they are charged to do. Hey, if they believe that there is no evidence that would show up in Phase II, they should complete the investigation anyway just to convince Americans that they are not cheating liars.

There's doubt in your mind because you haven't seen the intelligence. Roberts and Rockefeller have and they're yawning because your doubts are nothing but fantasy. The democrats could force the issue if they believed there was something to find. But they know it would be a dry hole.

[Ugly Duck]

There's doubt in your mind because you haven't seen the intelligence. And neither have you. Thats why there is an investigation, to check out the evidence. And you are wrong about Rockefeller... he wants to complete the job that the committee is charged to do. Its the Republicans that are renegging on their promise to do their job:

"The Chairman agreed to this investigation and I fully expect him to fulfill his commitment" - Senator John D. Rockefeller (D-WV), March 10, 2005

[patteeu]

And neither have you. Thats why there is an investigation, to check out the evidence. And you are wrong about Rockefeller... he wants to complete the job that the committee is charged to do. Its the Republicans that are renegging on their promise to do their job:

"The Chairman agreed to this investigation and I fully expect him to fulfill his commitment" - Senator John D. Rockefeller (D-WV), March 10, 2005

OK, I'm wrong about Rockefeller, we'll see how hard he pushes. If he's confident they'll find something, he'll be able to make enough noise to get it to happen. If not, he'll make a little noise to feed guys like you and then he'll quietly let it drop. I'm betting you'll be disappointed.

[Logical]

OK, I'm wrong about Rockefeller, we'll see how hard he pushes. If he's confident they'll find something, he'll be able to make enough noise to get it to happen. If not, he'll make a little noise to feed guys like you and then he'll quietly let it drop. I'm betting you'll be disappointed. I think he probably has given up based on this comment that he made.SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Yeah, we felt pressure to, you know, not do--put out this report that we did. Nevertheless, we were, in fact, under committee rules, and it was my hope from the very beginningýand we did not prevail because we are in the minority on the committee and in the Senate--to take up this whole question of what the administration said, what the administration did during this entire time. We actually only did prewar intelligence. That's all we did. The whole subject of what was the administration's role, what influence did they bring upon the American people, what pressure did they or did they not bring was never really gone into.


I don't like that the air will not be cleared for either side this way.

[Ugly Duck]

I think he probably has given up based on this comment that he made.

I don't like that the air will not be cleared for either side this way.Sigh. We libs are a buncha wusses. And the mainstream media, they're a buncha wusses, too. Its like the Dems and the media are afraid to take these guys on, to really call them out and demand that they level with us. Only the fringe folk like Conyers have the guts to speak up. We make me sick.

[jettio]

ROFL What a self absorbed tool. What's even funnier is you're the only person who perceives you that way.

Where's the proof that this war is/was illegal?

The proof is in the pudding, the GW B*sh pudding that you suck down at every opportunity.

Go to Oz and get a brain and some morals. Bring your friend B*sh along with you.

[jcl-kcfan2]

I have not read all the posts in this thread, it gets awfully repetitive, but I have a question for Penchief;

Where is the evidence for bombing Serbia, which was indeed an illegal "WAR' on a sovereign nation?

[penchief]

OK, I'm wrong about Rockefeller, we'll see how hard he pushes. If he's confident they'll find something, he'll be able to make enough noise to get it to happen. If not, he'll make a little noise to feed guys like you and then he'll quietly let it drop. I'm betting you'll be disappointed.

Excuse me for saying so but that is some lame-assed backtracking on your part. The republicans hold ALL the cards and for you to imply that any further investigation of pre-war intelligence lies in the hands of the "obstructionist, unpatriotic, terrorist-sympathizing" democrats is a bunch of horseshit, if you ask me.

[patteeu]

Excuse me for saying so but that is some lame-assed backtracking on your part. The republicans hold ALL the cards and for you to imply that any further investigation of pre-war intelligence lies in the hands of the "obstructionist, unpatriotic, terrorist-sympathizing" democrats is a bunch of horseshit, if you ask me.

LOL, when I admit I'm wrong it's "lame-ass backtracking" but when I stick to my guns I'm "shameless" and "stupid."

If Rockefeller and the democrats wanted to have Phase II, they could. All they have to do is make it the centerpiece in their propaganda package and eventually, they'd get enough people on their side to force the weak willed Republicans to do the investigation. BUT, when those people found out what a dry hole it is, the democrats would pay a price. That's why they wimper a little bit and then let it lie.

[penchief]

LOL, when I admit I'm wrong it's "lame-ass backtracking" but when I stick to my guns I'm "shameless" and "stupid."

If Rockefeller and the democrats wanted to have Phase II, they could. All they have to do is make it the centerpiece in their propaganda package and eventually, they'd get enough people on their side to force the weak willed Republicans to do the investigation. BUT, when those people found out what a dry hole it is, the democrats would pay a price. That's why they wimper a little bit and then let it lie.

You should have just admitted that you were wrong. The lame-assed part was trying to shift responsibility for the lack of further investigation on the democrats instead of those who hold the cards. You'd think there would be enough honorable republicans to fulfill their initial promise to the American public. To not do so doesn't mean that there isn't anything to see. It just means that those who wield the power don't have the will to do so, not those who are powerless.

On your part, admitting that Rockefeller's statements reflect the opposite of what you purport to be true is a good first step. If the leading democrat on that committee feels that way then how do you think the rest of the democratic party feels.

I agree that democrats should be much more aggressive in pursuit of the truth. I am very disappointed in the democratic leadership. They appear to be very intimidated by the power that has been usurped by this administration. They have acted like nothing more than a bunch of pussies, except for a few like Joseph Biden.

[Ugly Duck]

democrats should be much more aggressive in pursuit of the truth. I am very disappointed in the democratic leadership. They appear to be very intimidated by the power that has been usurped by this administration. They have acted like nothing more than a bunch of pussies, except for a few like Joseph Biden.An dats da sad, sad troof. Wut the hell are they so scared of? Stand up and demand that the committee finish its business, you buncha wussie wusses! Have a sit-in on the steps, present a petition, at least call a friggin' news conference and beg for some dang air time. Them Dems is really starting to piss me off....

[manny]

Yeah, we should have stopped bombing so it would be harder to fight.

:shake:

Anyway, can you point to the part of the Downing Street Memo that:

1. Shows Bush was responsible for enacting a policy of regime change in Iraq.

2. Shows Bush was not given information by the CIA prior to the run up to war that showed Saddam had WMDs.

3. Shows Bush did not go to the UN to get a resolution giving Saddam one final chance to reconcile his weapons declarations.

4. Shows that the resolution that Bush got at the UN didn't pass by a unanimous 15-0 vote.

5. Shows that Congress didn't authorize the invasion of Iraq on a bi-partisan vote.

6. Shows that the head of the UN didn't make the statement that "everyone knows Saddam has WMDs".

7. Shows that the head of the UN weapons insepction team didn't report to the Security Council in the weeks before the invasion of Iraq that Saddam had STILL not provided the disposition for tons of WMDs.

8. Shows why Saddam should have been believed when he said he destroyed tons of WMDs after UN inspectors were removed in 1998 after he had spent 7 years hiding those same weapons when the UN inspectors were actually in his country.

9. Shows how Bush could ignore information from Russian, England, and France that concluded that Saddam was harboring WMDs or plans to strike the US using proxies.

10. Shows how Bush could have lied about going into Iraq to stop them from using, giving or producing WMDs when Saddam's own generals believed the country held stockpiles of WMDs at the same time. Should Bush have somehow known something that Saddam's own military didn't?

And that's before we even get into the amount of time Saddam was given (12 years) to make good on his agreements made in the 91 armistice or the various bi-partisan committee reports that concluded that there HAD been high-level dialogue between Saddam's regime and Usama in the late 90s.

The fact that some on the left hold this document out as evidence that is strong enough to impeach Bush on borders on the laughable...unless you can disprove the facts presented above.

1. The Memos and much other evidence is available for anyone who wants to see it. Your problem is that you don't want to see it. But let me quote your hero in 2002 in front of three senators:

As he marched the nation to war, Bush presented himself as a Christian man of peace who saw war only as a last resort. But in a remarkable though little noted disclosure, Time magazine reported that in March 2002 – a full year before the invasion – Bush outlined his real thinking to three U.S. senators, “**** Saddam,” Bush said. “We’re taking him out.”

Time actually didn’t report the quote exactly that way. Apparently not to offend readers who admire Bush’s moral clarity, Time printed the quote as “F--- Saddam. We’re taking him out.”

Bush offered his pithy judgment after sticking his head in the door of a White House meeting between National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and three senators who had been discussing strategies for dealing with Iraq through the United Nations. The senators laughed uncomfortably at Bush’s remark, Time reported. [Time story posted March 23, 2003]

2. All of that evidence was shown, point by point, to either be dubious or patently false. Glen Rangwala, a British professor showed, BEFORE THE WAR, that claims of aluminum shells for chemical weapons, a "chemical factory" for weapons in Northern Iraq were patently false. Analysts at the CIA also contradicted the claims on the shells, for instance, and officials of the Bush Administration ignored the analysis by experts and published the claims as fact.

3. The memos clearly show, if you've read them, which you haven't, that the resolutions at the UN had two purposes: 1) Put more pressure on the Iraqi regime and perhaps provoke a mistake by Hussein that would justify an invasion, 2) Make the legal case for an unprovoked invasion of Iraq, something that the US and UK were both very worried about.

4. So what. That resolution didn't authorize a war by the US/UK.

5. The Democrats and Republicans are/were both pro-Iraq War. They both should receive the punishment for this crime.

The rest of your points deal with the question of WMDs, and I'll ask you these questions:

Why did both Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice say in early 2001 ON FILM that Iraq was "contained" and had "not developed any significant capabilities with respect to" WMDS?
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.cfm?Page=Article&ID=1132

An investigation of files and archive film for my TV documentary Breaking The Silence, together with interviews with former intelligence officers and senior Bush officials have revealed that Bush and Blair knew all along that Saddam Hussein was effectively disarmed.

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11, 2001, that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.
In Cairo, on February 24, 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.
Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15, 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

On France, Russia, and Britain having "Shows how Bush could ignore information from Russian, England, and France that concluded that Saddam was harboring WMDs or plans to strike the US using proxies."---Why did Russia initially oppose renewal of UN sanctions in 1998, then? Why did the French in 1998 want to relax the sanctions? The British, in fact, wanted to lift all sanctions in 1999. Why would they do this if they had clear evidence of Iraq being armed (or re-arming) with WMDs?

The US (Powell, Rice) is saying that Iraq is "contained" and members of the UN Security Council are calling for an end to sanctions, and a few years later when the writing is on the wall for a US/UK invasion they're all saying they have evidence of WMDs? Why?

The US wanted to keep it's foot on the neck of Iraq, so it touted the "results" of sanctions on Iraq. The French, Russians, Chinese and others wanted to penetrate the Iraqi economy as they saw popular opposition to sanctions rising and sanctions weakening. The British saw all this and were nervous that the French, Russians, etc. would get a foothold in the Iraqi market before they could, and so they began to raise ending sanctions altogether on Iraq.

Then 9/11 happens. The US uses the opportunity to push a war on Iraq. Powell, Rice, etc. stop referring to Iraq as a "contined" enemy and start pushing ambiguous "intelligence" as proof of Iraqi WMDs. These other countries see the US is determined to invade Iraq, and so they decide it's better to go along with the program ("claims" of intelligence) even though they won't participate in the invasion.

[patteeu]

1. The Memos and much other evidence is available for anyone who wants to see it. Your problem is that you don't want to see it. But let me quote your hero in 2002 in front of three senators:

As he marched the nation to war, Bush presented himself as a Christian man of peace who saw war only as a last resort. But in a remarkable though little noted disclosure, Time magazine reported that in March 2002 – a full year before the invasion – Bush outlined his real thinking to three U.S. senators, “**** Saddam,” Bush said. “We’re taking him out.”

Time actually didn’t report the quote exactly that way. Apparently not to offend readers who admire Bush’s moral clarity, Time printed the quote as “F--- Saddam. We’re taking him out.”

Bush offered his pithy judgment after sticking his head in the door of a White House meeting between National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and three senators who had been discussing strategies for dealing with Iraq through the United Nations. The senators laughed uncomfortably at Bush’s remark, Time reported. [Time story posted March 23, 2003]

This isn't responsive at all to RINGLEADER's first point which was that Bush didn't change US policy to regime change (that was done during the Clinton administration), he just made it happen.

2. All of that evidence was shown, point by point, to either be dubious or patently false. Glen Rangwala, a British professor showed, BEFORE THE WAR, that claims of aluminum shells for chemical weapons, a "chemical factory" for weapons in Northern Iraq were patently false. Analysts at the CIA also contradicted the claims on the shells, for instance, and officials of the Bush Administration ignored the analysis by experts and published the claims as fact.

Your assertion that "all of that evidence" was refuted is false. You don't even know what "all of the evidence" was. Some of the evidence was refuted, but that doesn't change the fact that the CIA believed Saddam had WMD. Look it up in the Senate investigation report.

3. The memos clearly show, if you've read them, which you haven't, that the resolutions at the UN had two purposes: 1) Put more pressure on the Iraqi regime and perhaps provoke a mistake by Hussein that would justify an invasion, 2) Make the legal case for an unprovoked invasion of Iraq, something that the US and UK were both very worried about.

Again, you aren't proving RINGLEADER wrong. Even if the Bush administration was predisposed to war, he still gave Saddam one last chance to avoid it. Bush called Saddam's bluff.

[manny]

Any comment on why Powell and Rice are saying Iraq is no threat to its neighbors in early 2001, and a direct threat to the US in 2003?

You guys have avoided touching this at all. I've laid this fact out several times since the war started and nobody has responded to it at all, much less with a serious explanation.

You can download the film here if you'd lke to verify it:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pilger_breaking_the_silence_35mb.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4808.htm

EXACTLY one year ago, Tony Blair told Parliament: "Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programme is active, detailed and growing.

"The policy of containment is not working. The weapons of mass destruction programme is not shut down. It is up and running now."

Not only was every word of this false, it was part of a big lie invented in Washington within hours of the attacks of September 11 2001 and used to hoodwink the American public and distract the media from the real reason for attacking Iraq. "It was 95 per cent charade," a former senior CIA analyst told me.

An investigation of files and archive film for my TV documentary Breaking The Silence, together with interviews with former intelligence officers and senior Bush officials have revealed that Bush and Blair knew all along that Saddam Hussein was effectively disarmed.

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.

Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years".
America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."