Afghanistan.. clear objective and exit strategy?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't believe we've found evidence that Saddam had any threatening WMD for years before the invasion. The Syria link is equally without substance. The story, as has been pretty much confirmed by multiple investigations is that Saddam gave up his WMD after 1998, and yet pretended to still have them with the possible intent of starting up programs after sanctions were lifted.


I "believe" that bits and pieces of evidence have been found that he had some such weapons and that he had plans, as you say, to restart WMD programs. Of course, "belief" and "substance" are different animals. To say that something is "equally without substance" as comparison to something you "don't believe" is a bit shifty. Nonetheless, I did say, in caps, that there is CONJECTURE that the WMDs were moved to Syria. And those conjectures have not been absolutely disproved. Certainly, no one has an answer to General Sada's claim, in his book "Saddam's Secrets" that the WMDs were moved to Syria.

While I appreciate your use of "populist power" (an obvious attempt to build a bridge) I'm not sure I'd use it in the same context. Bush wasn't really looking for an Iraq of the people (i.e. their interests), but rather a western model we could use to influence the region. Bush wasn't trying to spread democracy because it was the right thing to do, but believed it was in our own long-term interest. Unfortunately he forgot to read up on Iraq and let some really misguided assumptions direct his policy.

-spence

A western model WOULD be an "Iraq of the people." Spreading democracy, in our own long-term interest, IS the right thing to do.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I "believe" that bits and pieces of evidence have been found that he had some such weapons and that he had plans, as you say, to restart WMD programs.

I don't agree. I've read a ton on the subject and aside from a few random and useless artillery shells we really haven't found squat. The conclusion of the Duelfer Report was that Saddam destroyed his WMD in 1991.

Of course, "belief" and "substance" are different animals. To say that something is "equally without substance" as comparison to something you "don't believe" is a bit shifty. Nonetheless, I did say, in caps, that there is CONJECTURE that the WMDs were moved to Syria. And those conjectures have not been absolutely disproved. Certainly, no one has an answer to General Sada's claim, in his book "Saddam's Secrets" that the WMDs were moved to Syria.

This is the same game Cheney played with the Atta meeting in Prague. That because it hasn't been disproved it could have happened. This logic runs quite contrary to our own legal system.

To be quite matter of fact, there's really no evidence that supports the assertion. There was evidence of movement of something to Syria, but that we don't know if WMD were not there isn't evidence that there could have been.

I love how you quote an ex-General - who's trying to sell books to Americans - about a claim for which there's no evidence...oh quite to the contrary...the evidence gathered indicates there were no WMD to smuggle!

A western model WOULD be an "Iraq of the people." Spreading democracy, in our own long-term interest, IS the right thing to do.

You don't "spread" democracy, it has to be grown from within.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't agree. I've read a ton on the subject and aside from a few random and useless artillery shells we really haven't found squat. The conclusion of the Duelfer Report was that Saddam destroyed his WMD in 1991.


This is the same game Cheney played with the Atta meeting in Prague. That because it hasn't been disproved it could have happened. This logic runs quite contrary to our own legal system.

To be quite matter of fact, there's really no evidence that supports the assertion. There was evidence of movement of something to Syria, but that we don't know if WMD were not there isn't evidence that there could have been.

Obviously, if the evidence has been removed, you will not be able to find it. That is the purpose of removing the evidence, which Saddam had 14 months to do. A report about not finding something (that has been removed) is inconclusively worthless, unless you want to use it as fodder for argument.

I love how you quote an ex-General - who's trying to sell books to Americans - about a claim for which there's no evidence...oh quite to the contrary...the evidence gathered indicates there were no WMD to smuggle!

I love how you can so cavalierly smear someone, who was ACTUALLY IN SADDAMS ADMINISTRATION and would have insights no UN inspector, searching with blinders for something that has been removed, could ever have, and who risks deadly reprisal for publishing his book. Where is your EVIDENCE that he is lying? If you say "the evidence gathered indicates there were no WMD", the VERY POINT OF HIS BOOK IS THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS MOVED!!! And . . . oh, the ton that you've read on the subject, were the purveyors of that ton PAID? Or did they publish for free? You seem to question the motives of those who make a living from what they say (Rush et. al.) when you don't like what they say, but if what they say is OK with you, then money does not seem to be an object.

You don't "spread" democracy, it has to be grown from within.
-spence

"Spread democracy"--I was using your words. I wouldn't have put it that way. Certainly, democracy cannot be "grown from within" a dictatorship. The dictatorship must first be overthrown. Furthermore, Bush never argued that Saddam had produced new stockpiles of WMDs, he argued for stopping him before he acquired them. Saddam never verified that he had destroyed what the UN presumed remained from his previous weapons program. Even the Duelfer report believed there was evidence that he wanted to restart his previous WMD programs after the war. Certainly, all the major NATO countries and many others in the UN believed Saddam had restarted the programs and thought he was farther along than he may have been. And Bush has enumerated several reasons for the invasion other than stopping Saddam from acquiring or producing, AGAIN, WMDs. The lie, told over and over, is that Bush lied about WMDs.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

[COLOR="darkgreen"]Obviously, if the evidence has been removed, you will not be able to find it. That is the purpose of removing the evidence, which Saddam had 14 months to do. A report about not finding something (that has been removed) is inconclusively worthless, unless you want to use it as fodder for argument.

So you really want me to believe that an incompetent and corrupted organization could eliminate all traces of an active WMD program and stockpiles of weapons while under US/UN scrutiny?

That simply defies reason.

I love how you can so cavalierly smear someone, who was ACTUALLY IN SADDAMS ADMINISTRATION and would have insights no UN inspector, searching with blinders for something that has been removed, could ever have, and who risks deadly reprisal for publishing his book. Where is your EVIDENCE that he is lying? If you say "the evidence gathered indicates there were no WMD", the VERY POINT OF HIS BOOK IS THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS MOVED!!! And . . . oh, the ton that you've read on the subject, were the purveyors of that ton PAID? Or did they publish for free? You seem to question the motives of those who make a living from what they say (Rush et. al.) when you don't like what they say, but if what they say is OK with you, then money does not seem to be an object.

Read the Duelfer report. I believe they were payed a government paycheck and nothing more.

As for evidence Sada is lying, you're just playing the old game argumentum ad ignorantiam!

Furthermore, Bush never argued that Saddam had produced new stockpiles of WMDs, he argued for stopping him before he acquired them.

Not true, the entire basis for urgency was that Saddam had existing WMD and a relationship with alQaeda.

Saddam never verified that he had destroyed what the UN presumed remained from his previous weapons program. Even the Duelfer report believed there was evidence that he wanted to restart his previous WMD programs after the war. Certainly, all the major NATO countries and many others in the UN believed Saddam had restarted the programs and thought he was farther along than he may have been. And Bush has enumerated several reasons for the invasion other than stopping Saddam from acquiring or producing, AGAIN, WMDs. The lie, told over and over, is that Bush lied about WMDs.

Going into the war there was certainly much that was unknown, and why the International community was behind Bush with a new inspection regime.

Where it all turned was with the Powell speech.

The inspections were not providing the evidence to justify the war his foreign policy team so dearly wanted. Rather than let Blix finish his report, they "shot the messenger" and pressed forward breaking up the International coalition in the process.

I'm not one that believes Bush personally lied about WMD. Frankly I think he was just following the lead of those entrusted to guide him. Did his closest advisors misrepresent the case to the American people and "market" a war of choice? All evidence seems to indicate they certainly did...

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm not one that believes Bush personally lied about WMD. Frankly I think he was just following the lead of those entrusted to guide him. Did his closest advisors misrepresent the case to the American people and "market" a war of choice? All evidence seems to indicate they certainly did...

-spence

And the ground work was put in place by Clinton and the urgency caused by the 9/11 attacks.
And now your hero is following the Bush plan. Your words not mine. Why the free pass?

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by buckman

And now your hero is following the Bush plan. Your words not mine. Why the free pass?

He's not. I'm pissed at that tract.

I was hoping by now we'd be phasing out of Iraq... Spence hit on a lot of the reasons, but basically, we took SH out, we should have been phasing out then, letting them figure their future out, not us trying to dictate it to them. I've spent the entire war saying 'support the troops, not the war' and that has not changed for me.

A few months-year ago, I was pro-focusing on Afghanistan, but now I fear it is slipping into 'Nam style unwinnable war short of Nuking it, which I am not advocating.. monitor it closely, keep an eye out for Bin laden and Al Queda and get our boys home.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

And the ground work was put in place by Clinton and the urgency caused by the 9/11 attacks.
And now your hero is following the Bush plan. Your words not mine. Why the free pass?

Clinton policy was driven by actions during his second term. Saddam was increasingly flaunting the UN. This led to many calls for increased action, even by Democrats...but nobody (aside from the the neocons) was looking for an invasion.

In 2001 Saddam wasn't even being seen as much of a threat.

Both Powell and Rice made strong statements in the months before 9/11 that sanctions were working and Saddam was contained.

Then, suddenly, Saddam was the trigger for a nuke attack in the USA.

So I don't see how Clinton laid the groundwork for anything.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Clinton policy was driven by actions during his second term. Saddam was increasingly flaunting the UN. This led to many calls for increased action, even by Democrats...but nobody (aside from the the neocons) was looking for an invasion.

In 2001 Saddam wasn't even being seen as much of a threat.

Both Powell and Rice made strong statements in the months before 9/11 that sanctions were working and Saddam was contained.

Then, suddenly, Saddam was the trigger for a nuke attack in the USA.

So I don't see how Clinton laid the groundwork for anything.

-spence

probably all taken out of context


"[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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- #^&#^&#^&#^& Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 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." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. 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. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Clinton policy was driven by actions during his second term. Saddam was increasingly flaunting the UN. This led to many calls for increased action, even by Democrats...but nobody (aside from the the neocons) was looking for an invasion.

In 2001 Saddam wasn't even being seen as much of a threat.

Both Powell and Rice made strong statements in the months before 9/11 that sanctions were working and Saddam was contained.

Then, suddenly, Saddam was the trigger for a nuke attack in the USA.

So I don't see how Clinton laid the groundwork for anything.

-spence

Go back and google Clinton's words about Saddam. Sounds like the speach given by Powell prior to Bush removing Saddam from power. His inaction is what led to Saddam laughing at the UN and by the way,IMO, the attack on the Trade Centers.
Bombing an asprin factory during the Lewinsky "crisis" doesn't count as a foreign policy.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

So you really want me to believe that an incompetent and corrupted organization could eliminate all traces of an active WMD program and stockpiles of weapons while under US/UN scrutiny?

That simply defies reason.

Saddam's organization was not incompetent, nor were his scientists. They certainly weren't under UN/US scrutiny much of the time. What are the differences between the traces of an "active" or a recently become "inactive" WMD program? If no traces were found, that STRONGLY, suggests elimination of traces.

Read the Duelfer report. I believe they were payed a government paycheck and nothing more.

So we've established that Duelfer WAS paid. So, then, his whole report is tainted. Is his report the total of the "tons" that you've read? Were the other sources also paid? Were any of the sources BOOKS published for public PURCHASE? If so, then those, must also, by your disdain, be tarnished.

As for what's in this tainted Duelfer Report--the key findings summary states that Saddam"wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his WMD when sanctions were lifted." Further, the summary states "Saddam's primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the regime . . ." by balancing "the need to cooperate with the UN inspections . . . gain support for lifting the sanctions . . . to preserve Iraq's intellectual capital for WMD." Further, Saddam saw that the Oil for Food Program "could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development." The report further states that Saddam focused on three permanent members of the security council, France, Russia, and China, bribing Government officials and business executives with billions skimmed from Oil for Food. "AT A MINIMUM" the report says, "Saddam wanted to divide the 5 permanent members [of the security council] and foment international public support . . . by 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to . . . undermine international support for the sanctions." Before Duelfer succeded Kay as head of the ISG, Kay's team found evidence of "WMD-related program activities" but no actual weapons. They also found WMD programs BANNED by the UN and CONCEALED during the IAEA and UNMOVIC inspections. David Kay said that "what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war." His team established that the Iraqi regime had the production capacity and know-how to produce WMDs if sanctions were lifted. Kay BELIEVED some of Saddams WMD program components had been moved to Syria before 2003. Duelfer later reported there was no EVIDENCE of this. A lot of evidence was interviews with various Iraqis--He evidently didn't interview General Saya.

As for evidence Sada is lying, you're just playing the old game argumentum ad ignorantiam!-spence

You don't have evidence that Saya is lying, you're only depending on so called LACK OF EVIDENCE to support the argument for no WMD, which turns your "argumentum ad ignorantiam" right--back--at--YOU!!

As for an interesting argument for WMD, google "Kenneth Timmerman Saddam's WMD have been found."

Sorry Buckman, we seem to have highjacked your thread by rehashing old WMD stuff. There is no PROOF in any of this, just EVIDENCE or lack thereof. Again, I apologize, we should be discussing Obama's clear exit strategy. I guess, since no one has opined what that strategy is, no one thinks he has one.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Saddam's organization was not incompetent, nor were his scientists. They certainly weren't under UN/US scrutiny much of the time. What are the differences between the traces of an "active" or a recently become "inactive" WMD program? If no traces were found, that STRONGLY, suggests elimination of traces.

No, it strongly suggests the threat was not as characterized and that sanctions appeared to be working. He didn't just shut things down, the WMD appear to have been destroyed a decade earlier.

Would you expect a tyrant like Saddam to stop everything cold turkey? Of course not, but this is a looooonnnngggg way from having a functional weapons programs, or more importantly, the vast stockpiles the Administration argued were there.

So we've established that Duelfer WAS paid. So, then, his whole report is tainted. Is his report the total of the "tons" that you've read? Were the other sources also paid? Were any of the sources BOOKS published for public PURCHASE? If so, then those, must also, by your disdain, be tarnished.

Weak...

As for what's in this tainted Duelfer Report--the key findings summary states that Saddam"wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his WMD when sanctions were lifted." Further, the summary states "Saddam's primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the regime . . ." by balancing "the need to cooperate with the UN inspections . . . gain support for lifting the sanctions . . . to preserve Iraq's intellectual capital for WMD." Further, Saddam saw that the Oil for Food Program "could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development." The report further states that Saddam focused on three permanent members of the security council, France, Russia, and China, bribing Government officials and business executives with billions skimmed from Oil for Food. "AT A MINIMUM" the report says, "Saddam wanted to divide the 5 permanent members [of the security council] and foment international public support . . . by 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to . . . undermine international support for the sanctions." Before Duelfer succeded Kay as head of the ISG, Kay's team found evidence of "WMD-related program activities" but no actual weapons. They also found WMD programs BANNED by the UN and CONCEALED during the IAEA and UNMOVIC inspections. David Kay said that "what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war." His team established that the Iraqi regime had the production capacity and know-how to produce WMDs if sanctions were lifted. Kay BELIEVED some of Saddams WMD program components had been moved to Syria before 2003. Duelfer later reported there was no EVIDENCE of this. A lot of evidence was interviews with various Iraqis--He evidently didn't interview General Saya.

Kay was referring to WMD parts rather than stockpiles of weapons.

But all this "Saddam was a sneaky bad guy" stuff is really moot. At what point does it justify war? Remember the war? Remember the Saddam -> stockpiles of WMD -> Bin Laden connection that was the justification for a massive and urgent action?

The intent or ability to restart programs if sanctions are lifted doesn't provide the justification for urgency, in fact it blows a rather large hole in the Administrations argument.

Remember, the Blix team before the war was essentially turning up the exact same information.

You don't have evidence that Saya is lying, you're only depending on so called LACK OF EVIDENCE to support the argument for no WMD, which turns your "argumentum ad ignorantiam" right--back--at--YOU!!

If you read the Duelfer report it's clear the "evidence" indicated Saddam destroyed his WMD in 1991, the last biological weapons facility in 1996 and that his production capacity had eroded dramatically since then.

I guess, since no one has opined what that strategy is, no one thinks he has one.

You don't actually read my posts do you?

-spence

[Fly Rod]

Fuel to the fire.
Saddam did have WMD'S

Some like to over look the fact that Saddam ordered the killing of thousands of Kurds in the north. And how did he do this? In 1989 or there abouts take or give a year he ordered his air force to bomb a kurd village knowing that the kurds would go to their bomb shelters dug in the earth. He was correct and the air force dropped mustard and other nerve gases that lays on or finds its way into low ground levels. Over 60,000 Kurds mostly women and children were killed. Killing 60,000 people is mass destruction and he used bombs filled with these gases, therefore becomes weapons of mass destruction.

You will always have the dis-believers as you have people who believe that there was no holocaust.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

No, it strongly suggests the threat was not as characterized and that sanctions appeared to be working. He didn't just shut things down, the WMD appear to have been destroyed a decade earlier.

"suggests . . .appeared . . . appear"--As I apologized to Buckman, we have hijacked his thread with an old rehash consisting of no proofs, but suggestions, appearances, agendas.

Weak...

Exactly as weak as your disregard of Saya's book.

Kay was referring to WMD parts rather than stockpiles of weapons.


So?

But all this "Saddam was a sneaky bad guy" stuff is really moot. At what point does it justify war? Remember the war? Remember the Saddam -> stockpiles of WMD -> Bin Laden connection that was the justification for a massive and urgent action?
The intent or ability to restart programs if sanctions are lifted Doesn't provide the justification for urgency, in fact it blows a rather large hole in the administrations argument.

Among other "justifications" for war:
Failure to cooperate with arms inspecters
Threat to our security
Had pursued and used WMD
Sponsored terrorists
Ordered his military to shoot at Brit & US pilots patrolling no-fly zone
Had invaded his neighbors
Declared the US an enemy
Refused to comply with more than a dozen UN resolutions including demands that he respect the rights of the Iraqi people, disclose his weapons, abide by cease fire.
The action was not urgent, it took 14 months to start the war. In that time as the Duelfer report states, Saddam was working, EFFECTIVELY, to create an international environment to lift the sanctions. If he had been allowed to succeed, then he would produce the WMDs, and the war would have to take place later with a stronger Saddam with weapons to do immensely worse damage than our troops and Iraquis suffered. Waiting to take Saddam out could only WORSEN the final outcome. Some have argued that we should have gone in SOONER, even immediately, rather than wait the 14 months "diplomacy", which, as it was occurring, some were exactly saying that the diplomatic gap WAS GIVING SADDAM TIME TO HIDE OR REMOVE HIS WMDs. As for evidence that there are traces of an existing program, google the Kenneth Timmerman reference that I mentioned above. And, of course, there is the Saya book.



You don't actually read my posts do you?
-spence

Your posts stated that Obama has pretty much continued Bushes flawed policy then depends on NATO for 10 years. Is that a clear objective and an exit strategy?

[detbuch]

As this thread is winding down, I would like to more clearly reply to JohnnyD and Spence re: "modern day imperialsm" and "somewhat imperialistic" describing our invasion of Iraq.

Classical empires, though brutal (what wasn't in their time), hastened the uniting of people and created good as well as ill. The 400 years of Pax Romana was beneficial. The British Empire brought progress and union, and the U.S. is a direct result. In the 1960s the radical left saw opportunity to influence the counter-cultural revolution and anti-Vietnam war sentiments in its direction. Its only real power to influence a generation of youth was through words, especially by the politicization of words. One of the most influential words was IMPERIALIST. The nasty trick of slick, politicized language is to slide a word away from its original meaning and use it to describe a loosely similar entity--sometimes positively, sometimes negatively. The dictionary definition of imperialism (the policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other natioins) didn't quite fit but was close enough, so America was described by the hard left as an imperialist, capitalist running dog pig. This also had the effect of erasing any positive connotation. Imperialism was now thoroughly bad. The radical view could not survive but politicized words did. And imperialism evolved into the many modern day imperialisms--economic imperialism, cultural imperialism, military imperialism, religious imperialism, political imperialism, ACTUAL imperialism, or, now any new imperialisms we wish to create. How about new ones like, say, family imperialism, relational imperialism, baseball imperialism, gender imperialism, sexual imperialism, racial imperialism, insurance imperialism, and on and on. Obviously, this destroys any connectioin to the original definitions of imperialism except for a shadowy similarity. The word, essentialy, loses any intrinsic meaning, This is similar to what George Orwell says in his essay "Politics and the English Language" about the word "fascism" no longer having any meaning other than signifying "something not desirable."

Certainly, it is good to criticize us when we do bad. But can we think of a better word than imperialism or imperialistic? We are not an empire. We don't have an emperor. We haven't territorially acquired Iraq nor established economic or political hegemony over it. Saying that our action in Iraq is modern day imperialism is using a politicized word that has lost all meaning and retained only some vague inflamatory connotation. It sounds authoritative to say that invading Iraq is modern day imperialism, but what does that mean? It is convenient to use the phrase because it excuses you from saying what that "something not desirable" actually is. And when one cannot find words to describe a supposed concept, that often implies that the concept does not actually exist--at least not in some well thought-out thesis. Unmuddle your thinking, then you can give us the hell we deserve. And saying that the invasion was "somewhat" imperialistic is not only hedging on whether it was or not, but it is qualifying a meaningless dead metaphor. What really does "somewhat imperialistic" mean? The hard left, on the other hand, is happy to throw a politicized metaphor that means "something not desirable" at America to influence the uninformed masses who are easily persuaded by the sound of words regardless of their lack of substance. For those with some historical insight, however, such phrases are an insult to our intellilgence.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Spreading democracy, in our own long-term interest, IS the right thing to do.

This whole "Spreading Democracy" mantra through war is a bs statement. Our dealings with Taiwan, that's how you spread democracy. Bush used the full force of the US military to essentially assassinate a dictator.

You're comment about "Spreading democracy ... IS the right thing to do" is nothing more than modern day Imperialism.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

This whole "Spreading Democracy" mantra through war is a bs statement. Our dealings with Taiwan, that's how you spread democracy. Bush used the full force of the US military to essentially assassinate a dictator.

You're comment about "Spreading democracy ... IS the right thing to do" is nothing more than modern day Imperialism.

I was using Spence's phrase "spreading democracy" which is a bit disdainful--I wouldn't have thought of such a phrase. Even he admitted that you can't "spread democracy." Perhaps you didn't read that banter back and forth and thought I had made up the phrase. Even so, you kind of made my head spin by equating "spreading democracy" to Imperialism. Almost like saying charity is the work of the devil.

As for our dealings with Taiwan as an example of "how you spread democracy", do you mean our military power being a deterrent to Mainland China's takeover of Taiwan? Do you mean providing Taiwan a market for its goods? I am intrigued, please explain. And, WOW, "assassinate"? This is a new method of assassination--warn someone for several months of your intentions, give him opportunities to avoid the "assassination", and after getting him, letting someone else finish the job, then, improving the lot of what and who he owned.

BTW, I wasn't chanting a "spreading democracy" THROUGH WAR mantra. Again, it was a response to Spence. There is, also BTW, a general misconception about the importance of war. So many of us like to quote Santayana's phrase that those who don't learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. But we shun, or even more likely, aren't aware of another phrase by him--"there is eternal war in nature." He also said that war is merely resistance to change. So long as the invaded has the will and power to resist the invader, there will be war. And his dictum can be applied, not only to the "human condition" but to all of life, to all of existence. When you are enjoying a "moment of peace", be aware that all around you, and within you, countless wars are taking place. All are wars of survival. And, as Santayana also said, to live well, you must be victorious. Everything you have is a result of some war. Your very life will end when you are to weak to defeat what attacks you every minute of your existence. We are products of war, war informs everything we do. We have learned, through lessons of history, by evolution, to cooperate when it is to our benefit, when it enhances our survival, not when it is for acquiesence to some platonic ideal

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by detbuch

As for our dealings with Taiwan as an example of "how you spread democracy", do you mean our military power being a deterrent to Mainland China's takeover of Taiwan? Do you mean providing Taiwan a market for its goods? I am intrigued, please explain.

I mean by supporting the people's choice to have a democratic government, instead of forcing it upon them. The Taiwanese people want a democratic state. The US supports them in that measure - be it with a military backing (just as we support our other allies with our military), economic support (like we give to the Europeans) and diplomatic support.

My correlation of the US "Spreading Democracy" (a term which is Bush chanted quite frequently) and Imperialism is through the methods in which democracy was 'given' to the Iraqi people - through the military ousting of the previous government. My relationship to imperialism lies within your statement "Spreading democracy ... IS the right thing to do."

Overthrowing a government with our military to install a democratic one is what I am calling modern day Imperialism.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

I mean by supporting the people's choice to have a democratic government, instead of forcing it upon them.

Before we handed Saddam over to the IRAQI authorities to "assassinate," the Iraqis forged a democratic government of their choice.

The Taiwanese people want a democratic state. The US supports them in that measure - be it with a military backing (just as we support our other allies with our military), economic support (like we give to the Europeans) and diplomatic support.

The Iraqi people want a democratic state. The US suports them in that measure-be it with a military backing . . .economic support . . .and diplomatic support.

My correlation of the US "Spreading Democracy" (a term which is Bush chanted quite frequently) and Imperialism is through the methods in which democracy was 'given' to the Iraqi people - through the military ousting of the previous government. My relationship to imperialism lies within your statement "Spreading democracy ... IS the right thing to do."

My head still spins at Imperialism being the method of giving democracy. So, then, I would guess by your relation to imperialism, imperialistically spreading democracy to a people by militarily ousting the previous government, our founding fathers were imperialists.

Overthrowing a government with our military to install a democratic one is what I am calling modern day Imperialism.

Oh---I see now, your talking about MODERN DAY imperialism.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Oh---I see now, your talking about MODERN DAY imperialism.

Correct. I'm inserting a concept into the conversation that I didn't hear on the radio or read on some website. It's an observation/opinion that I have formed on my own. I understand that is a novel concept for many of the conservatives in here.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Correct. I'm inserting a concept into the conversation that I didn't hear on the radio or read on some website. It's an observation/opinion that I have formed on my own. I understand that is a novel concept for many of the conservatives in here.

Very novel, indeed! I can see that you don't drink the Kool-Aid. At least not until you mix it with something more potent, something to truly stir the imagination--well beyond the musty, boring, pedestrian mind of some conservatives. Happy dreams, my boy, your creativity will take you far.

PS--it's amazing how much the meaning of words can change when they get "progressively" politicized.