You knew, you weren't duped

[sandnsea]

I would like very specific evidence that existed in September of 2002 that led you to the conclusion that authorizing military action to enforce UN resolutions OR protect US security was wrong? Not gut instinct, Bush always lies, or any of that. Specific evidence that you used to reach the conclusion that Saddam Hussein was not a threat.

[cherryperry]

1. Let it go already!

I think Bush I told littleBush he had to get revenge after not finishing the job last century. What a bunch of bushit!

[rooboy]

2. Specific Evidence?

Huh? You don't provide 'evidence' of 'no evidence'.

You seem to have things ass-backwards. YOU show us why it was right, because in the last 200 days or so, there has been ample proof that it was wrong. Where I come from, people who make false accusations tend to get sued for libel or end up in jail for fraud.

[renie408]

4. Which is what got us in there in the first place.

Since the Iraqis couldn't prove they didn't have something they didn't have, we went to war. Even though (or maybe because?) we couldn't prove they had it, either.

[sandnsea]

10. The VOTE, not the war

The vote to authorize military action to enforce UN resolutions for Saddam to cooperate with disarmament. That's what was given in October. Why? Years of reports. I'm not saying there was any evidence sufficient to go to war, but that's not what the Authorization called for. But my point in this post is everybody says they KNEW this and that. What evidence did they have to dispute years of testimony about Iraq?

2000 CIA

Iraq has rebuilt key portions of its chemical production infrastructure for industrial and commercial use, as well as its missile production facilities. It has attempted to purchase numerous dual-use items for, or under the guise of, legitimate civilian use.

UNSCOM reported to the Security Council in December 1998 that Iraq also continued to withhold information related to its CW program.

We assess that since the suspension of UN inspections in December of 1998, Baghdad has had the capability to reinitiate both its CW and BW programs within a few weeks to months.

1999 CIA

Tariq Aziz, in January for example, called the Kuwait border issue 'a mine that may explode in the future'

Over the years I have talked about the capabilities of his military and his hidden weapons of mass destruction.

1998 Scott Ritter Testimony

Iraq today is not disarmed, and remains an ugly threat to its neighbors and to world peace.

Mr. Chairman, my job as the chief of the Concealment and Investigations Unit with the Special Commission was to expose the mechanisms used by Iraq to hide their retained weapons capabilities from discovery by United Nations weapons inspection teams.

But what I can say is that we have clear evidence that Iraq is retaining prohibited weapons capabilities in the fields of chemical, biological and ballistic- missile delivery systems of a range of greater than 150 kilometers.

[deutsey]

3. It's early and I have to get ready for a meeting I have today

so I don't have time to proivde specific articles, links, etc.

However, there is one article I wrote for Buzzflash before Powell gave his presentation to the UN that gives some reasons for why I was going to listen to him very skeptically.

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/02/03_Crank.html

I also put out a newsletter called Peace Talks and during the months leading up to the invasion I published reliable information about the anti-war rationale that I felt was not being presented in most TV mainstream news outlets. If you really want me to dig these back issues out, I'll post some of that information later.

A few things that come to mind, however, when I think about why I was skeptical of Bushco's reasons for war:

Just a day or two after 9/11, I think it was, Buscho was seizing on the tragedy as a way to justify invading Iraq. Of course, the PNAC boys back in the late '90s were saying that a Pearl Harbor style attack on the US would help to rally Americans to support invasion of that region of the world, so that shouldn't be surprising.

As I allude to in my Buzzflash article, I was also leary of the effort of Bushco to "sell" the war to the American public as if it were dishwashing detergent. There was a very sophisticated and coordinated effort made by powerful PR people and politicos (including Bob Kerrey, to my chagrin) to market the war to American citizens. Of course, a similar effort was made in Gulf War 1 by many of the same people and their "marketing" efforts have been proven to be propaganda and outright lies.

I also remember a CIA report, of all things, saying that Hussein was not really a danger to the region or the world. The only way he could become a danger was if Iraq were invaded, the report said. Of course, we now know that Cheney and others were putting an extraordinary amount of pressure on intelligence people to find the "correct" conclusions.

As I said, this is all off the top of my head. If I remember, later tonight I'll try to add some information along with citations.

But the bottom line is, many of us were not just going on gut instinct here. All you had to do was pay attention to all sides of the argument (which were not being provided on TV, so it wasn't all that easy to do), remember your history, and critically evaluate information you read or heard.

Here is one excellent column linked on Buzzflash that provides a "post-game" wrapup of why so many of us who marched in the streets, wrote letters, columns, books, and were highly skeptical about Bushco's motivations were right.

http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/opinion_columnists/article/0,1406,KNS_364_2200324,00.html

[sandnsea]

11. September 2002

not what you know now, what you knew before the vote.

[deutsey]

30. Here's a sampling of what fed my suspicions

Although it's obviously got its own slant on things, I read WSWS every day and find they are pretty prescient when it comes to the motivations behind Bushco's actions. This is from Sept. 2001.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/sep2001/war-s14.shtml September 2001

The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have been seized on as an opportunity to implement a far-reaching political agenda for which the most right-wing elements in the ruling elite have been clamoring for years. Within a day of the attack, before any light had been shed on the source of the assault or the dimensions of the plot, the government and the media had launched a coordinated campaign to declare that America was at war and the American people had to accept all the consequences of wartime existence.

The policies that are now being advanced—an open-ended expansion of US military action abroad and a crackdown on dissent at home—have long been in preparation. The US ruling elite has been hampered in implementing such policies by the lack of any significant support within the American population and resistance from its imperialist rivals in Europe and Asia.


A report that indicates Bushco was planning to invade Iraq as early as November 2001. Even then, many of us were questioning whether Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,610461,00.html December 2001

Bush is said to have issued instructions about the proposals, which are now at a detailed stage, to his Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, three weeks ago. But Pentagon sources say that a plan for attacking Iraq was developed by the time Bush's order was sent to the Pentagon, drawn up by Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, chairman of the joint chiefs General Richard Myers, and Franks.

Democracy Now: Bush intent on war despite Baghdad's willingness to have weapons inspectors August 2002

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/033250&mode=thread&tid=8

The London Observer is reporting that George W Bush will announce within weeks that he intends to attack Iraq. A senior official said Bush is expected to announce a final decision in August on the timing of the war. This would then be followed by a British-led campaign to get a mandate for action at the United Nations. Meanwhile Secretary of State General Colin Powell rejected an Iraqi offer to have the chief UN weapons inspector come to Baghdad. This as Undersecretary of State John Bolton admitted Saturday the aim in Washington is to topple the Iraqi government even if it allows the return of weapons inspectors.

From Democracy Now, Sept. 10, 2002:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/036236&mode=thread&tid=13

Now, hawks in Washington and London have seized on a new British report on Iraq’s nuclear capability as "proof" that Saddam Hussein is just months away from launching a nuclear bomb. But there is no proof in the International Institute for Security Studies report. The report also says Iraq's chemical, biological and ballistic missile programs are far weaker now than they were before the Gulf War in 1991.

The New York Times is reporting White House officials are following a meticulously planned strategy to persuade the public, the Congress and the allies of the need to attack Iraq. The officials are claiming the rollout of the strategy this week was not hastily concocted after some prominent Republicans began to raise doubts. The White House chief of staff who is coordinating the effort, Andrew Card, Jr. said: "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."


This is from September/October 2002 (I published in my October issue of Peace Talks); may not meet your criterion, but I can tell you that I published these because I felt they were representative of other reports earlier that fall, and shows that many people were skeptical of Bush's claims and suspected other, oilier motivations behind their pounding of war drums; it also shows how many people were saying that the US was violating international law by advocating war with Iraq:

GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN—Hours after Congress authorized President Bush to use force in Iraq, an economic adviser under four U.S. presidents told Grand Rapids business leaders that going to war "is probably the most bullish thing” for the economy. Former FDIC chairman Bill Seidman, who served under Nixon, Ford, Reagan and the senior Bush administrations, said defeating Saddam Hussein and controlling Iraqi oil is "at least as important as eliminating weapons of mass destruction." Grand Rapids Press

TAOS, NEW MEXICO—About two-thousand anti-war protesters, chanting, pounding drums and tooting horns, marched on the residence of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld north of Taos to demonstrate opposition to war with Iraq. Taos novelist John Nichols, author of "The Milagro Beanfield War" and the movie "Missing," was among the speakers. KRQE News/AP

WASHINGTON, DC—Over 300 people of color protested outside the White House last month in opposition to the “unconstitutional” war powers Congress granted the Bush administration. The three-hour event was organized by Black Voices for Peace and supported by the American

Indian Movement and the Grey Panthers. dc.indymedia.org
NEW YORK, NEW YORK—Six NYU students and other activists occupied Senator Hillary Clinton's midtown offices for nearly 8 hours to urge her to vote against the war resolution being debated in the Senate. Despite this and other protests, Clinton voted for the resolution. nyc.indymedia.org

ACROSS THE US—About 12,000 professors have signed an online petition opposing a U.S. invasion of Iraq on the grounds that it could destabilize the Middle East and claim many lives. The petition contends an invasion would be illegal under the United Nations charter and the Bush administration has failed to rally enough allied support for a war. Greenville News (South Carolina)

NEW YORK, NEW YORK—Eight NYU students crashed the stage of MTV’s Total Request Live, disrupting the show with an anti-war demonstration. The students, clad in white T-shirts with the words “No war on Iraq” stenciled in green and orange spray paint, hit the stage two separate times, interrupting the broadcast and stating: “We’re standing with people around the world against the war.”
NYU’s Washington Square News.

[deutsey]

37. PS: These would have been sources I read or listened to before

September 2002.

I didn't do a random google search; I went to WSWS, DN, etc., and looked for these items. I've listened to DN every day since months before 9/11; I've read WSWS every day since the 2000 election (I was very impressed with their reporting of what happened in Florida); likewise, The Gaurdian. So I was reading and hearing reports like this practically every day since well before September 2002.

I was not privvy to top secret documents and analyses, but I knew there was enough substantive doubt surrounding the plausibility of the claims Bushco was making to justify war to question what was really going on.

[sandnsea]

39. You're a rarity

And I know you didn't just google them up because generally people have to know where to get the info in the first place.

Still, there's nothing in your reports that provide information that indicate Saddam didn't have weapons. I didn't ask about 9/11 because the Authorization said enforce UN resolutions (which pertained to WMD) or protect US security. And I do recall Iraq making overtures here and there, they ended up not being serious and having numerous strings attached.

Mostly, your reports indicate a strong inclincation not to trust Bush or his motives. I respect that, I don't trust him either. But a Senator or Representative can't make decisions on US policy solely on how they feel about the President. I would venture a guess the WSWS didn't support going into Iraq at any point, nor the containment policy others endorse. Which leaves the question whether you think an Iraq with the strongest military in the region would be a good idea. For the region, Kuwait and Iran specifically, not us or Israel.

[deutsey]

48. Thanks

I do, however, disagree with the premise that these just indicate distrust over Bush motives, (although they certainly do have that!).

I think they certainly indicate that people were suspicious of the motives, but there many who were also concerned that the US was about to violate international law. I knew many people who wanted the UN inspectors to do their job and have the US support it. If weapons were found, well, then, some kind of action would be justified through an international coalition.

The fact that Bush was rejecting Baghdad's offer to have inspectors come in, thus thwarting the UN effort, only supported the suspicions many had that Bush was looking for an excuse, any excuse, to go in.

[sandnsea]

54. Yes, inspectors

Specifically, Kerry wanted the inspectors to continue to do their job too. That's why he voted to authorize a threat of force in order to get them in there in the first place. I'm not sure any Democrats supported going ahead with the war over allowing inspectors to continue, but I'm not sure. Hillary was pretty gung ho over the whole thing for one.

I disagree with you that Baghdad was making sincere efforts to have inspectors come in. It's just not the way I remember it at all. I remember there having to be a serious threat before there was anything near serious discussion. We'll just have to disagree there I guess.

[renie408]

5. Here's what I want YOU to prove.

I want you to prove that he was more of a threat to US national security than any other foreign leader in the world.

Goddam, there are 180 soldiers dead and BILLIONS of dollars spent while our economy goes to hell and the attention of the entire country drawn away from some REAL threats to the US and NOBODY could prove that Hussein was a threat to our country. None of the scary things that Powell talked about in his UN address have been found, nothing.

Hussein was a bad guy. He is no big loss as far as I can tell. But I am also sick of everybody pretending that he was a tangible, imminent threat to this country.

[sandnsea]

12. I didn't say he was

I said what evidence was there that forcing him to comply with UN resolutions wasn't a good idea. That's really what Bush was authorized to do, he screwed it up miserably, I agree.

[Egnever]

6. The sanctions say it all!

If you look at what we were doing to Iraq through the sanction process you have all the evidence you need to know that there was no possible way that they were producing anything. Here is a decent website detailing the sanction process what was in place http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/2002/paper.htm.
Not only was there no way they were producing any WMD but we were punishing them from the get go and blocking any chance of them proving thier compliance. As tired as the old saying goes it really does come down to oil in the end. Wich I personaly find incredibly lame. The raping of Iraq started long ago and today is just a continuation of it.

anyway read the sanction page it will inform you of all you need to know of why there was very little credible posibility that Iraq was continuing any sort of WMD program.

[sandnsea]

16. Sanctions forever?

That's half the point. Sanctions were hurting the Iraqi people. People on this board are always griping about how many children were killed under the sanctions, then they turn right around and use the sanctions as proof Saddam couldn't get any weapons. Not you necessarily. But we can't have it both ways. If we want to work towards lifting the sanctions, something has to be done to ensure a stable government in Iraq.

[Egnever]

28. The question was how did I know

This is a huge portion of how I knew the WMD was a farce. It has little to do with how I thought Iraq should have been handled.

[sandnsea]

31. Nothing in that link

It didn't say anything about Iraq's weapons, past or present. Sorry, don't understand how that disproves the intelligence about weapons in Sept. 2002. I'm not saying they had them, just that there's nothing available from Sept 2002 that proves the prior intelligence was wrong.

[Egnever]

44. Alll of the inteligence

refers to estimates of what he had before the inspectors left the frst time and even then only refers not to actuall weapons but the discrepancy in the amount of precusors he aquired and what could have been made had he used them.

What that link does provide is pretty clear evidence that not only werent WMD material making it into Iraq but that simple everyday medicines and materials for basic infrastructure weren't making it in. You cant have a full blown weapons program going if you cant get the required materials and they couldnt get jack in Iraq, in a large part due to american bullying them more than an actual desire to prevent weapons production.

[sandnsea]

55. See post #52

There's a couple of links in there that show what the concerns were and show that the IAEA was concerned too. And we have to remember that Bush was lying about Iraq getting fissile material from an African country at the time too, something nobody else knew. Not when Congress voted and that's all I'm referring to.

By the time the war came, it was obviously all distortion or lies and when David Kay submits his report, we're all going to have to get out our grammar books again to figure out what he's saying.

[LWolf]

7. Why?

What's your point?

I didn't reach a conclusion that authoriziing military action to help enforce UN resolutions was wrong.

I reached a conclusion that we should not be the strong arm of the UN; that we should allow the UN to decide when to go in; and that authorizing Bush was foolhardy.

I did not believe Saddam was a threat because viable evidence that would convince me of threat was not presented.

My conclusion about the advisability of authorizing bush to go into Iraq was based on the documented relationship between the bush family and Saddam, and Osama.

[sandnsea]

15. Based on what?

See #10. Again, how do you come to be smarter than the CIA or Scott Ritter? The authorization specifically stated the US should work with the UN.

I hate George Bush is not sufficient reason for Congress to ignore a danger claimed for years and years by every agency out there. Not evidence of imminent threat, I agree, but the Authorization didn't say he was.

[LWolf]

27. 1. I don't hate George Bush.

2. I didn't say I did.

3. What do my reasons for supporting or not supporting something have to do with Scott Ritter or the CIA? Where does making my own reasoned choice have to do with being "smarter" than people who make a different choice or take a different view? Are you saying I'm smarter because I didn't base my perspective on Scott or the CIA? What in the world were all the people who did not support the authorization thinking? Are you trying to applaud us, or demean us in order to make a non-apparent point?

4. Again...why do you care why or how I choose my position on an issue? As fodder for an argument? Because you're astonished by my incredible wisdom? Because you need to prove that, no matter how right we were, we were still wrong? Because you...oh my...want to defend a candidate who voted for the authorization? Shocking. Just shocking, I tell you.

[sandnsea]

57. The relationship between Bush & Osama

"My conclusion about the advisability of authorizing bush to go into Iraq was based on the documented relationship between the bush family and Saddam, and Osama."

This has nothing to do with the statements from agencies all over the world that Iraq's weapons activities were of concern. That's what a Congressman has to base their vote on.

And if you don't want to debate, don't.

[poskonig]

8. There was *no* evidence.

This is precisely the point.

[sandnsea]

14. See #10

How do you know all of that, which is just tiny excerpts from the actual intelligence, but how do you know it's all wrong?

[poskonig]

26. How can the "evidence" be wrong....

when there was no evidence?

[sandnsea]

58. A whole thread full of links

From sources all over the world. And none of it matters. :eyes:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

9. Missles incapable of travelling 3000 miles for starters.

[sandnsea]

13. Missiles aren't WMD

I agree with that. The WMD was the concern. Based on intelligence reported over many years, how can you say you're so smart you knew it all was wrong?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

17. Look at a map, sandandsea.

Us here.>>>>>>>>>>>>3000 miles<<<<<<<<<<<<<WMD there. No delivery system capable of transversing that space.

I believed that he did indeed have WMD. However, I never fell into the category that believed he intended to, or indeed could, attack us with it. Any attempt to do so would have created a crater the size of France in the middle east. Easy.

[sandnsea]

18. I agree with that

But that's not the whole story. And I'm referring to the specific authorization and its purpose in 2002. I'm referring to the UN resolutions and Iraq WMD. I'm referring to what was reported by so many agencies for years and years in that regard. People seem to be suggesting that it would be responsible leadership to just ignore all of that. And that somehow they knew years of reporting wasn't true based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever. It's bullshit.

The Bush Hype Machine went into full throttle after that vote. What was done to get us into that war makes my stomach turn, my heart ache, I think you know what I think of it. Treasonous is really putting it lightly. But thinking that Congress could really know that the DoD, State, CIA and the Administration would all conspire together to create a phony pretext for a war is just expecting too much of any US citizen really. It's beyond belief what they did. Senator Graham said you'd need a grammar lesson to go through each sentence of those reports and decipher what they really said and that is the exact truth of it. But nobody could have really known the extremes the Administration would go to in Sept 2002.

Congressmen voted against that authorization for a variety of reasons from not trusting Bush to just being opposed to war in principle. I also believe Congressmen voted for that authorization for a variety of reasons from political expediency to sincere belief that it was time to address the situation in Iraq. Gephardt and Edwards are the only 2 candidates whose war position concerns me, their statements just don't seem to reflect a thorough analysis of the situation. The rest do, it's the reasoning in drawing their conclusions that I'm concerned about, not whether they agree with me.

I'm just tired of hearing this one knew, that one knew. No. People looked at the intelligence and the situation in September 2002 and drew different conclusions. What Bush did after that is on his head and it's just too bad holding him accountable isn't as important as promoting one's presidential candidate.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

19. It really depends on who you were listening to.

David Kay or Scott Ritter. Paul Wolfowitz or Hans Blix.

Remember, it's really not about WMD, per se, it's about imminent threat and pre-emption. Don't lose the forest for the trees. There are really only a few countries that pose a real and grievous threat to the US. Iraq is not, and was not, one of them.

[sandnsea]

20. The authorization vote, not the war

It doesn't matter who you were listening to in September 2002. The differing voices didn't start coming out until after that. Hans Blix and Scott Ritter didn't have much of anything to say about what exactly was going on in Iraq because they didn't know and nobody knew until they actually got in there. Look at post #10 to see what Scott Ritter said about Iraq. That's my whole point. The Authorization approved the threat of military action in order to force Iraqi cooperation with inspections and disarmament because years of opinions from all over the world agreed that needed to be done. Not a war, not imminent threat to the US. A renewed disarmament process in Iraq.

Bush turned it into a pre-emptive strike because of a made up imminent threat playing on the US security aspect of that authorization, because he didn't want UN involvement or inspectors. Bush did that, after the vote, nobody could have predicted the extent he would go to in order to make that war happen. I don't care what anybody says, they couldn't have. And Congress surely couldn't have known Cheney was hounding the CIA, they were hiding the uranium report from Wilson, Rumsfeld would create his own intelligence division on Oct 25 2002; they couldn't have known any of this would happen. People use the information we know now to justify positions taken in Sept 2002 and it is illogical and unreasonable.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

21. Hmmmm.

Then the question becomes whether to approve a resolution with a 2 step process or a 1 step process.

2 step
Step 1, put inspections in place. Step 2, come back to us if you find something.

1 step
Step 1, give war powers authorization.(With "requests" to go to UN)

We got a 1 step process. A 2 step process would seem to be more checks-and-balances oriented.

All I can tell you is that I was most definatively against the war in September 2002. And if you will recall, Congress was flooded with mail requesting a "No" vote on the resolution. You may deem it "illogical and unreasonable," but it was really quite logical and quite reasonable. Iraq, in September 2002, was subject to no-fly zones. All its neighbors were militarily superior. Economic sanctions were in place. Containment was working. Why go to war?

[sandnsea]

23. Put inspections in place

How do you suppose that happened after 4 years without them? Saddam's good will? No, the threat of military force. And again, people complain as much about those sanctions and the harm they were causing the children of Iraq as they do about the war. Lift the sanctions all together and hope for the best in order to appease them? Move forward with inspections and work towards a real resolution to the situation? Or keep everything status quo even though children are suffering?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

33. Questions first.

Q: What was the goal? American security? ME security?

The answer to both, imo, is containment.

If the question was "What's best for Iraqi citizens?" then I guess a UN invasion was in order. The Iraqis were in a no-win situation. Perhaps an overthrow would have been best of all...:shrug:

[sandnsea]

35. Perpetual sanctions

That was killing Iraqi children. You can't win around here. The right thing to do was move forward on the inspections and the humanitarian aspects of the UN sanctions at the same time. Put together a large UN team on the ground to monitor both. Take over the oil for food program completely, if necessary, in order to get food and medicine to the people. There were alot of things that could have been done. But first Saddam had to be forced to cooperate. That's what the Authorization did. Bush is the one who totally mismanaged it after that, on purpose, and he's the one who should carry 100% of the blame.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

49. I agree with a lot of what you're saying.

Still the question needs to be answered.

What was the goal?

[sandnsea]

56. Realpolitik

American security because our economic security does, in fact, depend on oil. American security because getting our troops out of Saudi Arabia and removing the sanctions on the people of Iraq would ease anti-American sentiment in the ME. And if we had done one single blessed thing correctly in that country, it could have been a giant step forward in displaying the difference between monarchies and democracies. Moving forward toward a peaceful resolution of Iraqi disarmament could have been very beneficial for US interests.

I don't believe for a second that's what Bush had in mind. I do believe it is what every Democratic candidate had in mind.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

60. If our security depends on oil....Watch your back Canada!

Of the top 10 countries from which we import oil, only 2 are in the ME.




And if this was all about US economic security, why the hell aren't these Senators proposing legislation that weans us from our dependence on foreign oil? I'm just old enough to remember the oil crisis in the 70's. 30 years later, and we're guzzling oil faster than ever. There's more than one way to skin a cat. (sorry CatWoman).

[sandnsea]

62. Actually, they probably should!

If I were Canadian, I'd be worried!

Saudi Arabia is #2 in amounts, which needs to be factored in to where the oil comes from. Iraq has the ability to produce that much oil and it's very cheap oil. I'll say that again, it's very cheap oil. So if some other countries got access to producing that oil, it would also affect the world prices and the financial stability of US & British oil companies. And would either keep the Saudi situation as is or make the US dependent on other foreign corporations for oil because US oil companies wouldn't be able to compete. And it's putrid that we are still so dependent on oil. And I actually trust Kerry to get us off that oil and on to more innovative energy resources than Dean.

[DrFunkenstein]

38. We Genuinely Disagree (Not Just Nitpick)

I agree with Kerry and post-February Dean that disarmament and totally unfettered access were necessary and right. I just figured out that you agree with Kucinich and pre-February Dean that Iraq was so weakened it was unnecessary to force the issue of disarmament.

And I agree with Kerry that sanctions were a horrible failure. 20x as many people died from sanctions than the invasion. Mostly children.

The two-step process was supported by almost every Democrat - including Daschle - but was undercut by Gephardt and Lieberman. And with the administration on its heels after the press tore up Cheney's VFW saber-rattling, it would have actually passed. If that had happened, Dean would have to compete with Kerry on even footing. Which is to say Dean by now would be an historical footnote.

I don't know why I am surprised, but I had thought you supported disarmament, not containment. I guess Dean is your man. He at least agreed with you in the recent past. Kerry hasn't agreed with you since 1997.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

50. Yep. Containment.

Disarmament was a part of containment. They're not necessarily mutually exclusive. If SH was getting nukes or biologicals then a disarmament campaign (via inspections) would be necessary. Conventional disarmament was unnecessary due to their weakened state.

As for sanctions, they weren't necessary to implement containment. No one is arguing that they were effective.

The two-step process was supported by almost every Democrat - including Daschle - but was undercut by Gephardt and Lieberman.

Just because Joe and Geppy changed their vote didn't necessitate a vote change by anyone else. This "I voted for it but I disagreed with it" line doesn't wash.


Who ever said I agreed with Dean on this? Not me. Most of my efforts in this regard has been trying to point out the hypocracy of those who attack Dean on this issue while their own candidate voted for authorization of war while maintaining their surprise that it was actually used. Well, duh.

What you may fail to understand is that I have nothing against Kerry, nor any of the other candidates. I have a problem with people intentionally misrepresenting a candidate's position in an attempt to build up their own candidate. So I jump into flamebait threads to point out that hypocracy. In Kerry's case that happens to be the IWR and PA. The fact of the matter is that Kerry/Dean/Geppy/Edwards are all pretty close in ideology. If these deceptive flamebait threads ceased to exist, you'd very likely never hear me mention the IWR. Check out the archives and point to where I've started thread after thread dumping on Kerry or anyone else. You won't be able to do it. I started one PA thread with the intent that it not be flamebait but that's not how it was perceived, and I can understand why. Things are heated around here. Now look at those same archives and tell me if you can say the same thing. We both know the answer to that.

[Northwind]

22. In my case

It was very obvious, even back then, that the world at large was very much against this war. In the Un there was no support of military action, and I would never support authorizing military action on a UN resolution that the UN was not itself attempting to enforce through military action at the time. Saddam had been contained for 10 years. There was no evidence that he had suddenly gained the ability to threaten this country. He did not even have the ability to threaten this country back in '91.

Basically, we cannot claim to be supporting UN resolutions without UN approval, and we cannot say someone is a threat to the US becasue he is a bad man who murders his own people. There are lots of dictators in this world who do that whom we do business with on a regular basis (as we did with Saddam when we needed him to wage war on Iran) and we do not claim any of them are threats.

[sandnsea]

24. See #23

Are you saying the UN supported doing nothing in Iraq? Here's what France said "France is NOT supporting Saddam Hussein, whom we regularly describe as a dictator oppressing his people and denying Iraqis their basic human rights. We have been calling, along with the United States, the attention of the international community on the situation of the Iraqi people for over a decade. We have been exhorting S. Hussein to disarm. We have been promoting bans on the sale of armament to Iraq. France complied with the embargo and all UN restrictions."

"Had the inspections not proven successful, France would even have considered the option of the use of force in the last resort."

Countries were concerned about the situation in Iraq. Many Congressmen who were equally concerned and voted to authorize military action in order to force Iraq to cooperate were along the lines of the thinking of France. What Bush did with that authorization is the outrage, not the vote in the first place.

[disgruntella]

25. i know you said "no gut instinct" -- but --

I wasn't very educated on the Iraq situation until September 2002, so I can't answer your question regarding specific evidence. This is more of a personal POV. (By the way, I do think it is a good question you are asking.)

The whole buildup starting that month made me suspicious because Iraq had never been mentioned in the context of 9-11, and I thought that 9-11 was what the government's priorities *were*, or should have been, in regard to using military forces. That was pretty naiive on my part, eh? :(

[DrFunkenstein]

41. The Post 9/11 Priority Was Not Iraq's Imminent Threat

It was that in the post-9/11 world, Saddam could no longer be allowed to go unaccounted for. He had a record of developed WMDs, and although he seemed to pose no immediate threat, it was too great a risk to hope that containment worked. But disarming Iraq could have been easily accomplished without invasion. In fact, Bush's talk of invasion and regime change made disarmament much more difficult.

If we had gone with a clear message to the UN, we could have easily built an enormous coalition (including Arab states) to enforce Saddam's disarmament - and set new standards for non-proliferation. We could also have easily avoided the North Korean fiasco, and begun the process of real accounting for nuclear materials in the world.

Most importantly, we wouldn't have twisted the arms we needed to fight stateless terrorism - the true priority after 9/11.

[MercutioATC]

29. Violence is the refuge of the weak. War is almost always a bad idea.

I don't need proof that the war was a BAD idea, I get that every day looking at the economy, the deficit, our children (and theirs) dying in Iraq, etc. every day.

Show me why it was a GOOD idea.

[sandnsea]

32. I agree

But it's not the point of my question.

[DrFunkenstein]

40. Then You Almost Always Disagree With Dean

Including Iraq, where he supported war under different conditions.

But I think we all agree that there is nothing more terrible in this world than an unnecessary war.

[w4rma]

34. President Jimmy Carter: Just War - or a Just War?

Read Carter's Nobel Lecture, delivered in Oslo on Dec. 10, 2002.
Carter warns against 'catastrophic' war (December 10, 2002)
A Statement By President Carter: An Alternative To War (January 31, 2003)
Carter: Iraq threat does not justify war (January 31, 2003)
Carter Says Bush Has 'Not Made a Case' for War (February 1, 2003)
Carter Urges More Diplomacy on Iraq - Ex-President Blames Neglect of Mideast for Anti-American Mood (Feburary 25, 2003)
Just War — or a Just War? (March 9, 2003)

[sandnsea]

36. September 2002

It was obvious by December that Bush was pushing for war no matter what, not real resolutions with Iraq.

[jkg4peace]

42. It was all about propaganda

Seems to me that the UN's suspicions about reconstituted nuclear weapons programs were based on so-called US intelligence (after Bush had already made up his mind that we were going to war with Iraq)-- none of which panned out despite the inspectors' best efforts to locate them. All the evidence indicated that whatever remained of a weapons program was so far away from anything implementable (is that a word?) as to be of no threat to anyone. It was fairly well documented that most of their weapons had been destroyed already and their nuclear program was in total ruins. I wish I could provide all the links of the myriad articles I have read on the subject but I haven't the time or energy to go digging all that up again. The bottome line was that the evidence was distorted and Congress bought it.

The NIE that Tenet pulled together in a record breaking 2 weeks to help Bush convince Congress that there was reason to go to war with Iraq conveniently excluded any footnotes or explanations. When agencies disagreed about the importance or probability of, say, aluminum tubes for nuclear centrifuge, they took a vote. Those specializing in maps, eavesdropping, and foreign military forces outnumbered the votes of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research along with the opinion of the Energy Department's own centrifuge scientists (confirmed by European centrifuge scientists) that it was highly implausible they could be used in nuclear weapon making. Oh well, majority wins, right? The report concluded that "most analysts" believed the tubes were suitable and intended for centrifuge. None of the usual footnotes explaining the real score. (See the 8/10/2003 article in the Washington Post by Gellman and Pincus)

The other thing Bush used to scare the pants off of Congress was the whole African yellow cake scam -- which everyone knows was bogus and which was quickly dismissed by experts such as the IAEA and others days after the assertion. It just wasn't widely reported by the press because everyone was still pretending the emperor had clothes on. I don't think any of the revelations after the war about no weapons was news to me -- I had heard it all before the war, and I am just a mom with a computer and above average intelligence. If I knew it, there is no way that Washington insiders couldn't have known it.

The bigger question is -- how was it even legal for congress to grant Bush such a sweeping power to declare pre-emptive war as he saw fit? You would have thought it was at least worth debating. But NOOOO.

Not everyone bought it though --- DENNIS KUCINICH FOR PRESIDENT!!!!

[DrFunkenstein]

46. The Yellowcake Story Was Months After The Vote

Reading this passage will clear up alot, I think.

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html

"Although Iraq's chemical weapons capability was reduced during the UNSCOM inspections, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort over the last four years. Evidence suggests that it has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard gas, sarin, cyclosarin and VX.

Intelligence reports show that Iraq has invested more heavily in its biological weapons programs over the last four years, with the result that all key aspects of this program - R&D, production and weaponization - are active. Most elements of the program are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War.

Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives which could bring them to the United States homeland.

Since inspectors left, the Iraqi regime has energized its missile program - probably now consisting of a few dozen Scud-type missiles with ranges of 650 to 900 kilometers that could hit Israel, Saudi Arabia and other U.S. allies in the region.

Prior to the Gulf War, Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program. Although UNSCOM and IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) inspectors learned much about Iraq's efforts in this area, Iraq has failed to provide complete information on all aspects of its program.

Iraq has maintained its nuclear scientists and technicians as well as sufficient dual-use manufacturing capability to support a reconstituted nuclear weapons program.

Iraqi defectors who once worked for Iraq's nuclear weapons establishment have reportedly told American officials that acquiring nuclear weapons is a top priority for Saddam Hussein's regime.

According to the CIA's report, all US intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons.

The more difficult question to answer is when Iraq could actually achieve this goal. That depends on is its ability to acquire weapons-grade fissile material. If Iraq could acquire this material from abroad, the CIA estimates that it could have a nuclear weapon within one year.

Absent a foreign supplier, the CIA estimates that Iraq would not be able to produce a weapon until the last half of this decade. Nevertheless, Saddam Hussein's quest for nuclear weapons and his proven willingness to use weapons of mass destruction underline the very serious threat that the Iraqi regime could pose to the United States and others in the international community if left unchecked.

In the wake of September 11, who among us can discount the possibility that those weapons might be used against our troops or our allies in the region?

And while the administration has failed to prove any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might provide weapons of destruction to some terrorist group bent on destroying the United States? Can we really leave this to chance, when we could eliminate this deadly threat by acting now in concert with the international community, or alone if the threat is imminent -- which it is not now? In my view, we cannot."

[jkg4peace]

43. Try September --

September 2000, that is.

See "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century," September 2000. A Report of the Project for the New American Century.

[sandnsea]

45. I know all of this

And the information in your other post. The question is what was known in Sept 2002. Specifically what was available to the people on this board who say 'I knew, why didn't so and so'. Most of the information that people rely on now wasn't available then. Other information wasn't widely distributed like it is now. I've posted things on this board that people totally ignore. I guarantee you if it came out by Pincus tomorrow, it'd be yak, yak, yak. So even stuff a few people might have documentation and suspicions about, generally isn't taken as fact until it actually comes out in a real newspaper.

So when people say they knew or Dean knew or Kucinich knew; they really can't say anybody KNEW anything about the existence or non-existence of weapons in Iraq. Nobody could have known Iraq didn't have weapons.

[unfrigginreal]

47. Here's some interesting reading

Understanding the Lessons of Nuclear Inspections and Monitoring in Iraq: A Ten-Year Review

Sponsored by the Institute for Science and International Security

June 14-15, 2001

Keynote Address - The Emerging Bush Administration Approach to Addressing Iraq's WMD and Missiles Programs

Robert Einhorn, Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation

(snip)

In the nuclear area, there are no indications of the physical capability in Iraq to produce fissile material for weapons purposes. We believe that Iraq would need at least five years and some foreign assistance to enrich enough uranium to produce a nuclear explosive device. However, we know that Iraq has retained design information for nuclear weapons, and it has retained and kept intact its skilled manpower. And we must assume that theoretical work is continuing in Iraq for nuclear weapons.


http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/einhorn.html

------------------------

This report issued pre-9/11 will give you an idea of the evidence at hand at that point.

The truth of the matter though, you should be offering the evidence that persuaded Kerry and others to authorize a blank check for Bush.

[sandnsea]

52. Sept 2002 publication

That refers to Iraq doing it on its own. This report says months if they gained fissile material outside Iraq.

"It could, however, assemble nuclear weapons within months if fissile material from foreign sources were obtained."

http://www.iiss.org/confStatement.php?confID=3

The Authorization was specific to enforcing UN resolutions or protecting US security. All I'm saying is at the time of that Authorization evidence did exist that could lead a reasonable person to decide to go forward with the threat of force in order to get inspectors back in the country and get the situation in Iraq under control for the benefit of the people if nothing else. Not a war, a process. And in Sept 2002 there was no way anyone could know these things were not true. By the time of the war, absolutely, but not when the Authorization was being discussed.

This December report from the IAEA states things of concern between 1998 and 2002. It answers many questions but not all. Again, Bush is the one responsible for disparaging the IAEA and the inspection process.

http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/Press/Focus/IaeaIraq/unscreport_290103.html

[lastliberalintexas]

51. Nope

These are Bush Gang tactics. I do not have to prove a damn thing, since I was not the one wanting to invade another sovereign nation, put American and Iraqi lives on the line, or act contrary to international law.

As the one who took action, Shrub had the By God Obligation to PROVE that Hussein was such a threat that it justified the deaths of American soldiers. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!!!!!

Think about it this way. In our legal system, self defense is a justification for killing another human being. But guess who has the burden of establishing/proving the justification of self defense? You got it- the DEFENDANT!!

The US was basically acting as the defendant in a criminal matter by arguing that an act of force by us was necessary to protect our interests (ie, lives). As such, our country had the burden to prove that Hussein was such a threat. SHRUB FAILED TO DO SO. He did not present any evidence that Iraq was capable of striking the US or our interests- he merely did as you are trying to do and placed the burden on Iraq to prove that it was not a threat. It is virtually impossible to prove a negative, and Shrub and his gang knew that.

However, since Shrub failed to present evidence that Iraq was in fact a threat which justified our military action, any action taken by the US was NOT in self defense, but as the bad actor. In the US criminal system, we would be the one on trial for murder. And self defense would not be available to us as a plea.

Sorry, but this line of reasoning made my blood boil when argued by Shrub, and it is no less irritating now. I still can not believe that the international legal community allowed him to incorrectly place the burden of proof on Iraq. And it is even worse that the US Congress allowed him to do so.

So, I saw no evidence that Iraq was a credible threat against the US or our interests (or even its neighbors for that matter) prior to the invasion and have certainly seen no evidence of this post invasion. Until I do, I will believe that this invasion was wholly unjustified.

[sandnsea]

53. I'm not saying that at all

By the time the war rolled around there was ample evidence to show that there were serious questions about the validity of the claims. Many Iraq weapons questions had been answered. See my answer to the above poster.

I'm saying there *were* questionable activities going on in Iraq in September, there were UN resolutions in place for Iraq disarmament, the people of Iraq were suffering from the sanctions. Nearly everybody said Saddam was a threat. Now everybody wants to pretend they knew something different that few claimed at the time. There was no hard evidence available in September to prove the things that we found out *later* to be true. There are a few quotes up above from Scott Ritter from back in 1998 where he claimed himself that Iraq could make chem/bio weapons in a few months. That's all I'm saying. People who say they *knew* something are generally not being quite honest.

[lastliberalintexas]

59. But you are

You have asked for proof that he was not a threat, when that is not the proper question to ask.

My question is, as of September 2002, where was the evidence that Hussein was IN FACT a threat to the US or our interests so as to justify our invasion of a sovereign nation, so as to justify the deaths of American soldiers (not to mention Iraqis)? Where was THAT evidence as of September 2002?

For that matter, where is that evidence even today? I've yet to see anyone who supports or supported this war present any such evidence.

[sandnsea]

61. No I'm not

There's tons of links in this thread about the reasons to get inspectors back in and have Saddam complete the disarmament process. There's no evidence to dispute the claims made by Scott Ritter, the IAEA, ISIS, CIA, etc. The Authorization vote was not a blank check war vote. That's the whole point. Even Kucinich said, "The resolution passed yesterday by Congress authorized enforcement of UN Security Council resolutions, not colonization." The Authorization did get the inspectors back in. Bush and the rest of the Administration refused to cooperate with the UN, the inspectors, foreign countries, and our own Congress after that point. That's what I'm saying.

I'm not saying this war was the right thing to do, only that at the time of the vote there was no real evidence to dispute the claims that HAD been made. There is no way for anybody to be saying they KNEW anything based on any real facts. This is Bush's war and the more Democrats focus on each other instead of Bush, the more likely he is to get away with what HE did.