|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
OP
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489 |
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
I keep telling you guys the data gathered was nothing more than frosting on the cake. Declarations from Iraq to the UN would tell any reasonable person that the WMDs were there. As for the ugency, let's review news stories reported in the press in the months leading to the war:
1. Iraq regularly shooting at coallition planes patroling the no fly zone. That alone is grounds for military action according to the post Gulf War I agreements, IIRC.
2. Regular refusals (over a 12 year period mind you!) & delays in permitting inspections at various sites, giving Sadam a chance to move his WMD materials & personel away prior to allowing inspectors in.
3. US seeking UN agreement on action against Iraq for their refusal to allow un-inhibited inspections is expectedly met with resistance. Diplomats from france are actually campaigning/bribing other countries (particularly in Africa if you will recall) to vote against action, and france assures security council veto. Further investigation into the matter reveals contacts between the french ambasador & persons handling money in the oil for food program. Investigation begins as to whether or not france has been selling their security council vote.
4. Prior to invasion, review of the last two Iraq declarations reveals missing WMD materials & delivery systems - in a very considerable quantity. I documented these discrepancies on CEG with links to the CBS News website on more than one occasion. Additionally, Iraq is un-able and/or un-willing to provide explanations of these discrepancies & again blocks inspectors & refuses to allow access to various "palaces" that are suspected to house WMD materials and/or information.
Considering the animosity developed over the last two decades between Iraq & the U.S., is there any doubt that Iraq would at least consider placing some of the materials in terrorist hands??? With some material already gone, what choice would you have made given these conditions?
i'll try to respond to these more specifically later, but suffice it to say for now that the above reasons by themselves would not have gained approval from congress for a pre-emptive attack on iraq. if those reasons alone were the litmus test for pre-emptive attack we'd be bombing half the globe right now.
the main issues that i've mentioned before and i'm talking about now is the information linking iraq to al qaeda and 9/11 (which was used so many times together and even in the same sentence during state of the union addresses that most people probably believed saddam collaborated on 9/11), mobile biological weapons labs, nuclear weapons development program, wmd stock piles, terrorist training camps.
all of which were disputed by our intelligence agencies. but this disputed evidence wasn't available to the masses at the time congress and the american public were asked to give their support. even powell himself later on admitted "I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection between Saddam Hussein's regime and al Qaida." yet they were constantly mentioned in the same sentence. this was said time and time again based on unreliable/false information, that was noted as such before it was even mentioned. why? why didn't congress and everyone else have access to this information?
personally i don't believe that the bush admin would have gotten the green light for pre-emptive attack based on your 4 points alone. they needed to make a link to al qaeda, 9/11, nuclear weapons, wmd stock piles, terror camps, mobile weapons labs, etc in order to beef up their case for war and get congressional approval to use force.
'03 Saab 9-5 Aero
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117 |
Originally posted by BP:
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
1. Iraq regularly shooting at coallition planes patroling the no fly zone. That alone is grounds for military action according to the post Gulf War I agreements, IIRC.
i'll try to respond to these more specifically later, but suffice it to say for now that the above reasons by themselves would not have gained approval from congress for a pre-emptive attack on iraq.
See reason #1
Originally posted by BP:
the main issues that i've mentioned before and i'm talking about now is the information linking iraq to al qaeda and 9/11 (which was used so many times together and even in the same sentence during state of the union addresses that most people probably believed saddam collaborated on 9/11), mobile biological weapons labs, nuclear weapons development program, wmd stock piles, terrorist training camps.
MY point was that YOUR point is MOOT.
The declarations showed WMDs already missing before any action was taken against Iraq. Those discrepancies had to be accounted for or we could surmise it was possible they were falling into the hands of terrorists, or people who could/would sell them to terrorists. This was post 9/11 remember?
Don't you guys get it???
That crap was missing long before 1441 passed in the UN. In a post 9/11 world we can't wait around for the UN while the likes of the french stuff their pockets with oil for food money and block any meaningful action against proliferation of WMDs.
You're playing political roulette with the lives of innocent people all over the world. What will you tell the survivors of a chemical attack, who watched their loved ones die a painful death??
"We didn't have sufficient cooperation from the UN. Sorry. Yeah, ya see, some of the detailed stuff was a little sketchy so we had to ignore all the obvious stuff to satisfy our political requirements." Gawd I'm glad the adults are back in the White House.
Much of the world looks to the US for leadership in situations like this. We then traditionally would seek the cooperation of the UN. Once upon a time, the powers in europe could be counted on for their leadership role too. But now it has been demonstrated that they can be bought.
Must be that jumbly-wumbly thing happening again.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,760
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,760 |
TDF, that's just it, they don't get it. They want there to be a gassing killing thousands of people so that there is 120% accuracy in everything. They want another attack to happen so they can be right. They do not want to take the 'chance' to protect this country and all the other free countries the world has. The want us to be reactive instead of proactive.
If we played the game like they want us to, we'd sit on our asses until another 9/11 type event happens.
And if ANYONE has any faith in the UN then, well....
Ryan
Trollin!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037 |
Originally posted by BP:
personally i don't believe that the bush admin would have gotten the green light for pre-emptive attack based on your 4 points alone. they needed to make a link to al qaeda, 9/11, nuclear weapons, wmd stock piles, terror camps, mobile weapons labs, etc in order to beef up their case for war and get congressional approval to use force.
It wouldn't have been a pre-emptive attack, though, it would have been a reactive attack. It would...and SHOULD...have been:
"Iraq has been delinquent in meeting its obligations to the UN and has been actively aggressive against Coalition forces and its own population, and after the past decade of permissiveness from UN member nations, the United States has determined that said behavior is demonstrative of the Hussein regime's desire to continue in its extremist, expansionist, and belligerent behavior. This will be put to an end by force unless said activities cease immediately and Saddam Hussein steps down and allows a multilateral democratic government to form in his place."
"Think of it, if you like, as a librarian with a G-string under the tweed." Clarkson on the Mondeo.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,506
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,506 |
While Bush and Cheney kept telling us otherwise:
"In a news conference in February 2001 in Egypt, then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said of the economic sanctions against Hussein's Iraq: 'Frankly, they have worked. He has NOT developed ANY significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.'" (emphasis added).
MSDS, SHO-shop Y, custom 2.5" catback; xcal2; 63mm TB, K&N 3530; Koni struts, Aussie bar; THaines forks, Quaife, SpecII, UR fly; DMD; Nima UD pullies; Stazi brakes; f&r Pole120 mounts. Just a daily commuter car. Silver '98 SVT E0 #3159
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by BP:
i'll try to respond to these more specifically later, but suffice it to say for now that the above reasons by themselves would not have gained approval from congress for a pre-emptive attack on iraq. if those reasons alone were the litmus test for pre-emptive attack we'd be bombing half the globe right now.
Wrong; half the globe hasn't engaged in sparring with the UN and the US in the way that Iraq did for over a 10-year period. It's a unique situation that does NOT deserve to be painted with the same brush as any other conflict in our recent past. Why? 9/11 and the atmosphere surrounding the aftermath of that day is why...
Originally posted by BP:
the main issues that i've mentioned before and i'm talking about now is the information linking iraq to al qaeda and 9/11 (which was used so many times together and even in the same sentence during state of the union addresses that most people probably believed saddam collaborated on 9/11), mobile biological weapons labs, nuclear weapons development program, wmd stock piles, terrorist training camps.
The Al-Qaeda link is the only card you have to play; it was weak to begin with. The rest were based off of intel estimates (some dated, yes and some that were based off of shody information provided by defectors and apparently questionable "insiders") that came from the various intelligence agencies in the US. Yes, most turned out to be proven wrong or at best inconclusive (not good either), but the UN and US estimates on Iraqi WMD capability before we factually found out otherwise still speak for themselves; to this day there are TONS of missing materials on the official tallies, which was one of the major factors that the invasion was predicated on.
Originally posted by BP:
all of which were disputed by our intelligence agencies.
Yes, but WHEN? Some small pieces of contrary material were ignored or apparently deemed insufficient to counter a decade worth of BS that the Iraqi regime made the UN and the US wade through right before the invasion.
So, are you saying Tenet was on the Bush payroll or "bribe" list when he made the "slam dunk" statement?
Please point out how many US Presidents have ignored their Intelligence Director when language that strong was used?
Originally posted by BP:
but this disputed evidence wasn't available to the masses at the time congress and the american public were asked to give their support. even powell himself later on admitted "I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection between Saddam Hussein's regime and al Qaida." yet they were constantly mentioned in the same sentence. this was said time and time again based on unreliable/false information, that was noted as such before it was even mentioned. why? why didn't congress and everyone else have access to this information?
That's because NOBODY had the entire picture until well after the war had already been executed. Much of what we know know about Iraq today came DIRECTLY from waltzing into Baghdad and digging around ourselves. Intelligence estimates both for and against some of the positions that were held on Iraq were FINALLY solidified; they were no longer "estimates" but FACTS.
Originally posted by BP:
personally i don't believe that the bush admin would have gotten the green light for pre-emptive attack based on your 4 points alone. they needed to make a link to al qaeda, 9/11, nuclear weapons, wmd stock piles, terror camps, mobile weapons labs, etc in order to beef up their case for war and get congressional approval to use force.
And those links were made from using intelligence estimates that came from the CIA and other intel sources, though of course it seems that with a couple of the finer points, there was some consternation between the State Dept., Energy Dept., CIA, DIA, the UN and a couple of other parties involved.
My private pilot instructor once told me about a flight crew that so fixated on one warning light in the cockpit of a cargo plane that they ended up taking the plane straight into elevated terrain; I think the adage would apply here and that at the time, the US, it's intelligence agencies and the Bush administration had their eye on what appeared to be the larger ball at the time.
2 years later, that warning light now seems to be the topic of fixation since the mountain that the "early warning system" hollered about was apparently mis-calibrated...
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 98
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 98 |
The members of the Senate Intelligence Committee all have access to the same intelligence as the Executive branch. They voted in favor of the war. They could have cherry picked some objections from the intelligence dossiers at the time of the vote to authorize force couldn't they? Perhaps it wasn't politically prudent to do so? Please read the section in this doc were CIA director Tenet presents evidence about Iraq to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee: IN FACT ZARQAWI IS PRESENT AS BEING IN IRAQ AND BEING A CLOSE ASSOCIATE OF BIN LADEN IN THIS DOCUMENT IN FEBRUARY 2003. http://intelligence.senate.gov/0302hrg/030211/tenet.pdfHe was one of the witnesses available on: http://intelligence.senate.gov/0302hrg/030211/witness.htmOn the site: http://intelligence.senate.gov/Was Tenet part of this conspiracy too? The evidence presented at the time was crystal clear. Jurisdiction of the Committee: JURISDICTION Created pursuant to S.Res. 400, 94th Congress: to oversee and make continuing studies of the intelligence activities and programs of the United States Government, and to submit to the Senate appropriate proposals for legislation and report to the Senate concerning such intelligence activities and programs. In carrying out this purpose, the Select Committee on Intelligence shall make every effort to assure that the appropriate departments and agencies of the United States provide informed and timely intelligence necessary for the executive and legislative branches to make sound decisions affecting the security and vital interests of the Nation. It is further the purpose of this resolution to provide vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States. The Committee concluded AFTER we went into Iraq and after getting much better intel data AFTER having boots on the ground in Iraq that the intelligence was crappy. Conclusions of the committee: http://intelligence.senate.gov/conclusions.pdfThey pretty much state that the executive branch basically presented their case for the war just fine based on all the intel that they were provided at the time. However, some of the intel was ultimately found to be flawed. They got the green light and it was given to them without deceit. The facts simply do not support the Demagogues in our government who spin conspiracies to cover their asses that were part of the let's go to war crowd only 2 years ago. The facts are all there. But you need to find them yourself, because the speeches that politicians give and excerpts that the news media present aren't going to do it for you. Click around with your mouse for a few hours and draw your own conclusions with the facts at your fingertips.
'96 Mercury Mystique GS 2.5L Auto
'99 Honda Passport EX 3.2 4WD
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489 |
there was never any question that saddam most likely had some wmd capability. that's not what we're discussing! Originally posted by JaTo:
Yes, most turned out to be proven wrong or at best inconclusive
the al qaeda link was the most powerful point the bush admin had to persuade people that pre-emptive attack was necessary. that's what the whole thing was about in the post 9/11 atmosphere. why else would the two be tied together in pretty much every speech and every comment made on the case for war in iraq?
even so, the information we had back then pointed to the fact that the intelligence was likely wrong or inconclusive. and that was before we decided to present it to congress, UN, and the rest of america. you still haven't answered my question as to why the decision to use that info was made?
as i mentioned before, i think it's because the case for war without those links wouldn't have been supported by the points brought up by TDF.
Originally posted by JaTo:
2 years later, that warning light now seems to be the topic of fixation since the mountain that the "early warning system" hollered about was apparently mis-calibrated...
if you're going on a cross country trip and a warning light is flickering off and on a quarter of the way there, do you rush to your destination risking a disaster or do you stop to check everything out? what would your flight instructor do?
to me it looks like we rushed to the destination and ran smack dab into that elevated terrain your flight instructor was talking about.
'03 Saab 9-5 Aero
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,506
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,506 |
JaTo, you'd disagree with Gen. Odom's opinion that Iraq is now in a civil war. Let's keep in mind YOUR words of "reckless" and "isn't entirely bright" when we consider your input further.
(NOTE: CAPS added to help out JaTo)
Experts: Iraq Verges on Civil War
May 12th, 2005
Washington - An unchastened insurgency sowed devastation across Iraq Wednesday as experts here said the country is either on the verge of civil war or already in the middle of it.
"It's just POLITICAL RHETORIC to say we're NOT in a civil war. We've been in a civil war FOR A LONG TIME," said Pat Lang, the former TOP Middle East intelligence official at THE PENTAGON.
Other experts said Iraq is on the verge of a full-scale civil war with civilians on both sides being slaughtered. "I think we are REALLY on the edge" of ALL-OUT CIVIL WAR, said Noah Feldman, a New York University law professor who worked for the U.S. coalition in Iraq. He said the insurgency has been "getting stronger every passing day. When the violence recedes, it is a sign that they are regrouping...I have not seen any coherent evidence that we are winning against the insurgency."
"Everything we thought we knew about the insurgency obviously is flawed," said Judith Kipper of the Council on Foreign Relations.
"I just think this Sunni thing is going to be pretty hard," said Phebe Marr, a leading U.S. Iraq expert reached in the protected Green Zone in Baghdad. "The American public has to get its expectations down to something reasonable."
Now the 140,000-plus U.S. troops in the country are mainly "a nuisance" factor in the insurgents' overall goal of preventing the new government from consolidating.
All the while the insurgents are gaining strength. "The longer they keep going on the better they will get," said Lang, a student of military history. "The best school of war is war."
The Sunni insurgents could win the battle if they persevere, Feldman said. "There is no evidence whatsoever that they cannot win."
MSDS, SHO-shop Y, custom 2.5" catback; xcal2; 63mm TB, K&N 3530; Koni struts, Aussie bar; THaines forks, Quaife, SpecII, UR fly; DMD; Nima UD pullies; Stazi brakes; f&r Pole120 mounts. Just a daily commuter car. Silver '98 SVT E0 #3159
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117 |
Originally posted by PDXSVT:
While Bush and Cheney kept telling us otherwise:
"In a news conference in February 2001 in Egypt, then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said of the economic sanctions against Hussein's Iraq: 'Frankly, they have worked. He has NOT developed ANY significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.'" (emphasis added).
So, what's your point?
That he had stuff? OK, got it.
That statement suggests that he wasn't actively working on generating additional quantities of any particular WMD & its associated technology. OK, fine. So what. He still had what was developed prior to that time & was draggin' his feet when it came to destruction of existing materials & the inspection/documentation of same.
At least you're willing to agree he had the materials.
Must be that jumbly-wumbly thing happening again.
|
|
|
|
|
