[Lerkfish]

kindbud provided:

Get a grip, folks. If WMD are not found in Iraq - that's a GOOD thing. It means we got there early enough to prevent a future attack. Hell, Dubya probably saved your life if you're a Westerner.

what will be the official spin, or what will be the spin of various bush apologists here on board? speculate or provide your own spin.

I"d be interested in seeing how apologists will demonstrate that Bush, Rumsfeld, and Powell did NOT lie.

*pulls up a chair and pops some popcorn*

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
kindbud provided:



what will be the official spin, or what will be the spin of various bush apologists here on board? speculate or provide your own spin.

I"d be interested in seeing how apologists will demonstrate that Bush, Rumsfeld, and Powell did NOT lie.

*pulls up a chair and pops some popcorn*

Dude, I have no idea what you're even talking about... what are you - some kind of tin-foil-hat, conspiracy-nut lunatic??? Get a grip, already.

[ghost_flash]

I never cared about WMD's, I wanted to go beat the crap out of someone, and IRAQ was a start, but I'm still bloodthirsty, so Syria, libya, Saudi Arabia, North Korea. Step on up, it's your turn to take your medicine.

If Bush lied, then Clinton lied, and several dozen other people that have nothing to do with the United States invading Iraq.

If we saved but one son-in-law of Saddam, it was worth it.



Apologist? Never, Saddam and his sick sons got what they deserved, and Iraq is better off.

Next.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
I never cared about WMD's, I wanted to go beat the crap out of someone, and IRAQ was a start, but I'm still bloodthirsty, so Syria, libya, Saudi Arabia, North Korea. Step on up, it's your turn to take your medicine.

If Bush lied, then Clinton lied, and several dozen other people that have nothing to do with the United States invading Iraq.

If we saved but one son-in-law of Saddam, it was worth it.



Apologist? Never, Saddam and his sick sons got what they deserved, and Iraq is better off.

Next.

:applause: The honest approach.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Dude, I have no idea what you're even talking about... what are you - some kind of tin-foil-hat, conspiracy-nut lunatic??? Get a grip, already.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
I never cared about WMD's, I wanted to go beat the crap out of someone, and IRAQ was a start, but I'm still bloodthirsty, so Syria, libya, Saudi Arabia, North Korea. Step on up, it's your turn to take your medicine.

If Bush lied, then Clinton lied, and several dozen other people that have nothing to do with the United States invading Iraq.

If we saved but one son-in-law of Saddam, it was worth it.



Apologist? Never, Saddam and his sick sons got what they deserved, and Iraq is better off.

Next.

If you feel that strongly about it why don't you join the military and start "beating the crap" out of somebody yourself?

Bloodthirsty Ya you are real tough sitting behind your keyboard. Put your money where your mouth is you pantywaist. Talk like that is an insult to those who are actually out there. You suck

[The Ayatollah]

Originally posted by shmerek:
If you feel that strongly about it why don't you join the military and start "beating the crap" out of somebody yourself?

Bloodthirsty Ya you are real tough sitting behind your keyboard. Put your money where your mouth is you pantywaist. Talk like that is an insult to those who are actually out there. You suck

they have 'net access in Iraq. Maybe that's where he's writing from.

[swrate]

Originally posted by The Ayatollah:
they have 'net access in Iraq. Maybe that's where he's writing from.

I doubt Subovia is a nick for Iraq, but who knows,
net access in Iraq, it depends where one is located.
Jesus, the first "boy" killed phoned his father and they spoke 5 hours.
His son was crying and telling him they had to shoot and they shot at groups of people sometimes children, and he was crying, I dont want to be murdering innocent people...

If the population becomes aware, my spin is that the situation could change
it seems like many are
others? bloodthirsty for Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, North Korea ...BTW you have many missing on your Impirialistic list...
........
oh, and there is a big problem, could the US afford to place troops som many places????

[kindbud]

Anybody got a spare grip?
^ homeboy needs to get one pretty badly.

or at least move him to a country that isn't so weak their only option is inaction.

I'd be irate, too, if my country was required to suck up to the US.

[The Ayatollah]

Originally posted by kindbud:
Anybody got a spare grip?
^ homeboy needs to get one pretty badly.

or at least move him to a country that isn't so weak their only option is inaction.

I'd be irate, too, if my country was required to suck up to the US.

He might not be so ticked if his people's only response to their problems wasn't just to blow themselves and innocent women and babies to bloody pieces as part of some 'divine jihad' against the Jewish 'infestation' or 'The Great Satan' and apostatic West.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by shmerek:
If you feel that strongly about it why don't you join the military and start "beating the crap" out of somebody yourself?

Bloodthirsty Ya you are real tough sitting behind your keyboard. Put your money where your mouth is you pantywaist. Talk like that is an insult to those who are actually out there. You suck

Decaf from now on for you, and take those antidepresents pronto.

[maxelson]

Awaiting new spin.
More popcorn may be needed.

edit for "liberal media" conspiracy theorists: feel free to ignore the painfully obvious liberal New England press slant headline and go straight for the quote.

[Zimphire]

Lets go over this again folks.

1. Did Iraq had banned weapons?
Yes it did. We know this. Iraq admitted this. the UN even tagged a few before slapping them on the wrist.

2. Was Iraq told to get rid of the WMDs?
Yes Iraq was. Not only that. Iraq was told to show proof of this.

3. Did Iraq do this?
We wouldn't know if Iraq did the first, because they never showed us the 2nd.

4. So if Iraq was to say be attacked for having WMDs because they never showed proof otherwise, and was indeed supposed to, and was given 12 years to do so, who's fault is it?
BLAME THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION! This is the only logical choice here folks. Can't you see? Even if The Clinton administration believed the SAME THING, and acted upon it. Regardless it's BUSH's FAULT that Iraq didn't comply.

We should have given Iraq another 12 years. By then he may have had something substantial, and a Democrat might have been in office and THEN we could have attacked.

That would have made MUCH more sense.

OR we could have just waited till Saddam started telling the truth. Or better yet, he keeled over and his sons took over.

That would have been a better idea.

Remember Folks, 3 prongs, Bush is evil. FOREVER CONSTANTLY.

Now get back to your Maypole and keep spinning.

Apologists new spin Lerk?

You've been trying to spin this from the beginning. And it's still not working.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Lets go over this again folks.

1. Did Iraq had banned weapons?
Yes it did. We know this. Iraq admitted this. the UN even tagged a few before slapping them on the wrist.

2. Was Iraq told to get rid of the WMDs?
Yes Iraq was. Not only that. Iraq was told to show proof of this.

3. Did Iraq do this?
We wouldn't know if Iraq did the first, because they never showed us the 2nd.

4. So if Iraq was to say be attacked for having WMDs because they never showed proof otherwise, and was indeed supposed to, and was given 12 years to do so, who's fault is it?
BLAME THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION! This is the only logical choice here folks. Can't you see? Even if The Clinton administration believed the SAME THING, and acted upon it. Regardless it's BUSH's FAULT that Iraq didn't comply.

We should have given Iraq another 12 years. By then he may have had something substantial, and a Democrat might have been in office and THEN we could have attacked.

That would have made MUCH more sense.

OR we could have just waited till Saddam started telling the truth. Or better yet, he keeled over and his sons took over.

That would have been a better idea.

Remember Folks, 3 prongs, Bush is evil. FOREVER CONSTANTLY.

Now get back to your Maypole and keep spinning.

Apologists new spin Lerk?

You've been trying to spin this from the beginning. And it's still not working.

You're wrong and you know it.

1) Iraq had a few missiles that theoretically go beyond the limits imposed. True enough. If you took off the warhead and the guidance system, it could go further than was allowed and had been tested to do so. And the UN regulations didn't specify that the weapons had to have guidance and warheads. Iraq's interpretation of the regs, which I think is fair, was that they weren't in contravention.

2) Iraq was indeed told to get rid of them

3) It got rid of them!! It destroyed 1/3 of the missiles it had within a few days. If the Americans hadn't taken the law into their own hands, it would have destroyed more of its missiles; being the ONLY banned weapons (and NOT weapons of mass destruction) that have been identified in Iraq since the inspectors left the first time. Note that Colin Powell, in his speech, never once mentioned those missiles. What the US was on about, was anthrax and nukes and other poisonous stuff; not a few pathetic missiles!

4) Iraq showed proof. It's as if the whole process of inspection never happened when you open your mouth! You refuse to understand what the UN said!! It said that there are some anomalies. When we add up what we know the US sold them (for example) with what they say they destroyed, there seems to be some missing. Most of the destruction was actually verified before trigger-happy Bush went a slaughtering. Every person who has ever been to Iraq, defected from Iraq, been captured has said there were no WMD. The UN never authorised the US to invade. The UN did not think the process was complete. It wanted to inspect more. By doing its own thing, the US took the law into its own hands. It was NOT doing the UN's work for the UN.

The warmonger you call a president invaded unilaterally and slaughtered 10,000 innocent people. During that process he neither identified nor destroyed a single Weapon of Mass Destruction. If you approve of that, then the blood of 10,000 innocent people is on your hands, not to mention the blood of more than 500 US soldiers. I don't think you would accept that sort of behaviour if it had been Saddam beating up on the US for no reason!

[christ]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
I never cared about WMD's, I wanted to go beat the crap out of someone, and IRAQ was a start, but I'm still bloodthirsty, so Syria, libya, Saudi Arabia, North Korea. Step on up, it's your turn to take your medicine.

Technically, Afghanistan was the start, you forgot a whole country.

:
If Bush lied, then Clinton lied, and several dozen other people that have nothing to do with the United States invading Iraq.

Don't you remember being taught that two wrongs don't make a right? What has Clinton lying got to do with the invasion of Iraq?

If we saved but one son-in-law of Saddam, it was worth it.

? But you killed 10,000 to do it - this appears to be bad odds.

Apologist? Never, Saddam and his sick sons got what they deserved...

As did 10,000 that didn't.

...and Iraq is better off.

Not yet it isn't

Next.

I assume you are not one of those that deny warmongering. Keep going, the world will definitely be a safer place when all human life is gone.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Troll:
You're wrong and you know it.

I just love it when Troll starts out replies like this. He lives up to his nickname.

1) Iraq had a few missiles that theoretically go beyond the limits imposed. True enough. If you took off the warhead and the guidance system, it could go further than was allowed and had been tested to do so. And the UN regulations didn't specify that the weapons had to have guidance and warheads. Iraq's interpretation of the regs, which I think is fair, was that they weren't in contravention.

Those were the ones that were tagged. Iraq claimed to have more.

Now, if Iraq was lying, and just bragging, is that our fault for believing them? Of course not.

Iraq claimed to have these

5,000 gallons of Botulinum (causing Botulism)
2,000 gallons of Anthrax
25 biological-filled Scud warheads
157 aerial bombs

2) Iraq was indeed told to get rid of them

And to show proof.

3) It got rid of them!! It destroyed 1/3 of the missiles it had within a few days.

Really? 1/3 in three days. WOW Iraq did get rid of them all. 1/3 is like all of them.

And where is the proof they did such?

If the Americans hadn't taken the law into their own hands, it would have destroyed more of its missiles;

Yeah your right, if America hadn't jumped the gun (12 years ) Iraq would have eventually stalled enough huh? Come on Troll. You are taking something you don't know, and saying it's a fact!

I would say it's a large large assumption that if the US wouldn't have did anything, that Iraq would have gotten rid of it all. Wait, I thought they didn't have anything to get rid of..

being the ONLY banned weapons (and NOT weapons of mass destruction) that have been identified in Iraq since the inspectors left the first time. Note that Colin Powell, in his speech, never once mentioned those missiles. What the US was on about, was anthrax and nukes and other poisonous stuff; not a few pathetic missiles!

They were on about Iraq not following along with what they were told to do.

4) Iraq showed proof. It's as if the whole process of inspection never happened when you open your mouth!

LOL!!! Oh it did happen. And inspectors were kicked out many of times, and weren't allowed certain places.

You remember, when Clinton bombed the crap out of them in the 90s?

Yeah I am sure they were proving something alright.

You refuse to understand what the UN said!! It said that there are some anomalies. When we add up what we know the US sold them (for example) with what they say they destroyed, there seems to be some missing. Most of the destruction was actually verified before trigger-happy Bush went a slaughtering.

LOL! Nonsense! Back when Clinton was in office he STILL Thought Iraq had WMDs and banned weapons. This wasn't just a Bush thing.

Why did Clinton think this Troll? What gave Clinton the idea that Saddam wasn't telling the truth?

President Clinton said Tuesday that Washington still favors a diplomatic solution to the Iraq crisis, but stressed that any solution must include free and unfettered access for U.N. weapons inspectors.

"A diplomatic solution must include, or meet, a clear, immutable, reasonable, simple standard: Iraq must agree -- and soon -- to free, full, unfettered access to these (inspection) sites anywhere in the country," Clinton said.

Hussein, said the president, "threatens the security of all the rest of us."

Clinton said Hussein and the Iraqi leadership had repeatedly lied to the United Nations about the country's weaponry.

"It is obvious that there is an attempt here based on the whole history of this (weapons inspections) operation since 1991 to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them and the feedstock necessary to produce them," Clinton said.

The president said that after the Gulf War ended in 1991, Iraq admitted having a massive offensive biological warfare capability, including:

5,000 gallons of Botulinum (causing Botulism)
2,000 gallons of Anthrax
25 biological-filled Scud warheads
157 aerial bombs

Clinton said Iraq still posed a threat to the national security of the United States and the "freedom-loving world."

That about sums it up. But yeah, it was Bush and his cronies that made this all up! No one thought the same thing for the past decade! BUSH MADE IT UP!!

Iraq wasn't hiding anything!
They were giving inspectors free roam of Iraq!
They proved they had no more weapons!

If you are self deluded that is.

Every person who has ever been to Iraq, defected from Iraq, been captured has said there were no WMD. The UN never authorised the US to invade. The UN did not think the process was complete. It wanted to inspect more. By doing its own thing, the US took the law into its own hands. It was NOT doing the UN's work for the UN.

So were you upset when Clinton took the law into his own hands and bypassed the UN all together when he bombed the crap out of Iraq for the same reasons?

Simple fact here troll. Iraq did not follow through. This is what got Iraq into trouble.
Had Iraq followed through, there would have been no question about WMDs.

The warmonger you call a president invaded unilaterally and slaughtered 10,000 innocent people. During that process he neither identified nor destroyed a single Weapon of Mass Destruction. If you approve of that, then the blood of 10,000 innocent people is on your hands, not to mention the blood of more than 500 US soldiers. I don't think you would accept that sort of behaviour if it had been Saddam beating up on the US for no reason!

Nice spin. How many people did Saddam kill in the past 20 years? If you were against this war, the blood of all those people are on your hands. I can play that ridiculous spin game too Troll.

Sorry, didn't work this time. Go back to your Maypole and proclaim to be a lover of humanity.

The reason Iraq got into trouble is because

1. It failed to show proof that was required.
2. It bragging about having things it did or did not have

Either way "He, and he alone, will be to blame for the consequences."

And it's true. Saddam is the one you should be pointing fingers at bub.

You make the bed you lay in.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by christ:
Don't you remember being taught that two wrongs don't make a right? What has Clinton lying got to do with the invasion of Iraq?

I don't believe Clinton was lying when he made such statements. I think he was trying to say, both men believed this. There had to be a reason.

I don't believe either one was lying at the time.

Say I believe there are UFOs. I show proof as to why I believe that.

A year later someone tells me there is no UFOs and has proof. Does that make me a liar?

Silly.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You make the bed you lay in.

Hold that thought.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Hold that thought.

I know that was a attempt at being clever. And you are correct. If the administration is at fault. It will pay for it's actions.

No one has free reign.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Lets go over this again folks.

1. Did Iraq had banned weapons?
Yes it did. We know this. Iraq admitted this. the UN even tagged a few before slapping them on the wrist.

2. Was Iraq told to get rid of the WMDs?
Yes Iraq was. Not only that. Iraq was told to show proof of this.

3. Did Iraq do this?
We wouldn't know if Iraq did the first, because they never showed us the 2nd.

4. So if Iraq was to say be attacked for having WMDs because they never showed proof otherwise, and was indeed supposed to, and was given 12 years to do so, who's fault is it?
BLAME THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION! This is the only logical choice here folks. Can't you see? Even if The Clinton administration believed the SAME THING, and acted upon it. Regardless it's BUSH's FAULT that Iraq didn't comply.

We should have given Iraq another 12 years. By then he may have had something substantial, and a Democrat might have been in office and THEN we could have attacked.

That would have made MUCH more sense.

OR we could have just waited till Saddam started telling the truth. Or better yet, he keeled over and his sons took over.

That would have been a better idea.

Remember Folks, 3 prongs, Bush is evil. FOREVER CONSTANTLY.

Now get back to your Maypole and keep spinning.

Apologists new spin Lerk?

You've been trying to spin this from the beginning. And it's still not working.

soooo...your spin is that Bush lied because Lerk is crazy? That's not going to work outside of macNN.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
soooo...your spin is that Bush lied because Lerk is crazy? That's not going to work outside of macNN.

That isn't what I said. Not even close.

But you might have something there with that crazy bit.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
That isn't what I said. Not even close.

But you might have something there with that crazy bit.

the point is, Bush, Rumsfeld, and Powell lied...knowingly lied to the US and the world.
you didn't address that.....which was the point of the thread.

They claimed they absolutely knew, ironclad, the exact locations of the WMDs. They did not. That is a baldfaced lie.

The question isn't whether they SUSPECTED they were there, they said they KNEW> liars, all of them....so how do you spin, that, spinster?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
the point is, Bush, Rumsfeld, and Powell lied...knowingly lied to the US and the world.
you didn't address that.....which was the point of the thread.

They claimed they absolutely knew, ironclad, the exact locations of the WMDs. They did not. That is a baldfaced lie.

The question isn't whether they SUSPECTED they were there, they said they KNEW> liars, all of them....so how do you spin, that, spinster?

Show me exact quotes of them saying they knew exactly where the WMD was Lerk.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Show me exact quotes of them saying they knew exactly where the WMD was Lerk.

please try to stay in the spirit of the thread...if you don't want to provide a "spin", you don't need to post in it. We have zillions of threads fishtailing on just that issue.

why do you rightwingers always avoid questions by asking other ones?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
please try to stay in the spirit of the thread...if you don't want to provide a "spin", you don't need to post in it. We have zillions of threads fishtailing on just that issue.

Lerk you are going off in tangents. Maybe it's time to take another break.

why do you rightwingers always avoid questions by asking other ones?

I wasn't avoiding the question. I was asking you for proof. Then I would answer.

Why do leftwingers always avoid being asked for proof?

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Show me exact quotes of them saying they knew exactly where the WMD was Lerk.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2...dabcsteph.html

Rumsfeld:

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

[Zimphire]

That isn't knowing exactly where they are.

[zigzag]

It seems to me that all the talk about U.N. resolutions, pro or con, is mostly just lung exercise. Everyone thought Saddam had weapons, but everyone also felt that he was being contained, as reflected in Powell's own speech. 9/11 didn't change anything on the ground in Iraq - the only thing that changed between Powell's speech and the invasion was a pressing desire to reshape the Middle East, with Saddam as the starting point. This led the current administration to exaggerate the urgency of the WMD threat in order to deflect opposition. There was no compelling reason to withdraw the inspectors and invade at that particular time, other than the fact that the administration was committed to invading. The U.N. stuff was for show.

This doesn't, IMO, mean there were no valid reasons to overthrow Saddam. It does mean that the price of dishonesty, clumsy diplomacy, and poor planning can be very high.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
That isn't knowing exactly where they are.

We've gone over this so many times that it seems clear that you refuse to face the facts. Which is why I say that you know you're wrong.

Everyone, including Clinton, Chirac, Schroeder etc. said the same thing because they had the same source for the information - the UN. The UN was the only reliable source of information on Iraq's WMD. Everyone got their information from the UN. What you fail to mention is the fact that the weapons that Iraq admitted to it also said it had destroyed. It's true that the UN was not always happy with the evidence of destruction. Anthrax is a good example. You may recall Blix's analogy to the water in the backyard. Iraqis had been told to destroy all WMD and they took that to mean all information relating to the destruction thereof too. The UN couldn't verify that all of it had been poured into the ground, largely due to technological difficulties. The UN therefore assumed the worse case scenario. They reported that 90% or more of Iraq's WMD were destroyed and accounted for but called on Iraq to prove that the rest were gone too.

I too thought it was better to assume that Iraq still had WMD. But neither the UN, nor I believed that there were grounds to slaughter innocent people over the weapons which may or may not have existed. They believed that inspections were the right way to go. And look at what the inspections achieved! They verified Iraq's allegations that the anthrax had been destroyed using more modern technology. They destroyed missiles. All in the space of a few weeks. Blix requested a few more weeks and the UN was not scared to use force if required. They just didn't think it was required at that point.

The US said it had other information. It claimed, to Blix's frustration, that it had other evidence that the UN had not seen. It failed to ever produce that evidence except to have Powell tell stories at the UN.

Don't neglect the big picture here. The big picture is that there were many ways to deal with Saddam. Killing innocent people wasn't the only option. Bush went for the use of force option because ostensibly he thought it was necessary to protect the world from the threat Iraq faced. He threw caution to the wind. It's now proven that Iraq was no such threat. The big picture is that there was no justification for the 10,000 dead civilians. None whatsoever. WMD is THE issue here. Without them, Bush should be in very deep water domestically. If enough Americans cared about the people that have been murdered in their names, maybe this issue wouldn't be swept under the carpet!

Saddam was a bastard and I'm happy he's gone, but the end does not justify the means here.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by zigzag:
...This led the current administration to exaggerate the urgency of the WMD threat in order to deflect opposition. There was no compelling reason to withdraw the inspectors and invade at that particular time, other than the fact that the administration was committed to invading. The U.N. stuff was for show.

With that being said, how do you explain the prior administration's case (which was almost exactly the same) against Iraq a few years earlier?

The WMD intelligence was recited repeatedly - I'll easily admit that, but the urgency was more a result of an overall attitude change on the national level after 9/11.

The same intelligence cited 3 years prior didn't come close to generating the same "we're not going to take Saddam's playing around with UN resolutions and weapons inspections any more" attitude that the nation rapidly developed after 9/11.

This doesn't, IMO, mean there were no valid reasons to overthrow Saddam. It does mean that the price of dishonesty, clumsy diplomacy, and poor planning can be very high.

I don't think our leaders on both sides of the aisle were maintaining the same dishonesty over the past 5-10 years. They all looked at the same intelligence, and most derived the same conclusion: Saddam is in violation of his disarmament obligations and is continuing his WMD programs.

As for "clumsy diplomacy", the US had been going the diplomatic routes for 10+ years, so I don't know where this clumsy comes in. Once the huge, behind-the-back-of-the-UN contracts that France and Russia had established with Saddam came to light, I think it was apparent to the entire administration that "diplomacy" was going to come at a steep price

Should we have just given Russia ($8 billion), France ($3 billion), and Germany ($1.4 billion) the money owed to them by Saddam? Apparently, the administration wasn't playing that game.

And the "poor planning" - I don't know how much more planning could have been done. Plans have consistently been worked on since the first Gulf war. That's 10+ years of planning. And IMO I think our plans and contingencies have performed quite well. Compared to previous US reconstruction efforts, this reconstruction effort is outstanding.

Politically, Bush may pay for his decisions. But he knew that all along, and made his decisions based on what he felt was right. Blair too.

[Ayelbourne]

(AP) - The former top U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq said Sunday he believes Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. David Kay said the challenge for the United States now is to figure out why intelligence indicated that the Iraqi president did have them. "We led this search to find the truth, not to find the weapons. The fact that we found the weapons do not exist, we've got to deal with that difference and understand why," Kay said Sunday on the National Public Radio program "Weekend Edition."

I don't know if I'd characterise Kay as an "apologist", but I have to admit - that's a nice bit of spin!



That said, I disagree with Kay. I rather think "the challenge" is to get the Bush administration to admit that they selectively filtered the intelligence to get the result they were looking for - the one they thought would foster alliances and garner legitimacy. I can't imagine that any nation in the world is putting more resources into spying and gathering intelligence than the US right now, so I think putting the onus on the intelligence community is pretty feeble. We all know who hyped this issue and I think everyone is pretty clear on why.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Troll:
Don't neglect the big picture here. The big picture is that there were many ways to deal with Saddam. Killing innocent people wasn't the only option. Bush went for the use of force option because ostensibly he thought it was necessary to protect the world from the threat Iraq faced. He threw caution to the wind. It's now proven that Iraq was no such threat.

It's now proven Iraq was no such threat? Have you read any of Kay's recent statements other than the "I don't think they existed" line?

Still, "that is not the same thing as saying it was not a serious, imminent threat. That is a political judgment," he said, "not a technical judgment."

"I must say I actually think Iraq — what we learned during the inspections — made Iraq a more dangerous place potentially than in fact we thought it was even before the war," Kay added.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
I don't know if I'd characterise Kay as an "apologist", but I have to admit - that's a nice bit of spin!

I disagree. The full scope of Saddam's programs - who he bought materials from, who and what countries were involved, what research was conducted, etc. - all that is very important.

[mr. natural]

As posted by spacefreak, David Kay said:

Still, "that is not the same thing as saying it was not a serious, imminent threat. That is a political judgment," he said, "not a technical judgment."

"I must say I actually think Iraq — what we learned during the inspections — made Iraq a more dangerous place potentially than in fact we thought it was even before the war," Kay added.

LOL!

Politics trumps reality!

And even when it hits the apologists in the face as what we've been saying all along they spin it as a point in their favor!

Oh, the tragic-comedy of it all!

Just goes to prove the adage: Give 'em enough rope and they'll hang themselves.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I disagree. The full scope of Saddam's programs - who he bought materials from, who and what countries were involved, what research was conducted, etc. - all that is very important.

Obviously. And, ironically, it is the US itself that could fill in some of those important details.

What I meant is that Kay's statement reads like he is helping to set up the intelligence community to take the blame, and it dovetails nicely into Bush's new "programs/programs-related" diffusion tactic.

[kindbud]

Doesn't anyone find it disturbing that the same countries doing business with Saddam are the same countries that oppose the liberation of Iraq?

It's funny as hell to hear the French say "sanctions aren't working" - after signing multibillion dollar contracts with the target of the sanctions.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by kindbud:
Doesn't anyone find it disturbing that the same countries doing business with Saddam are the same countries that oppose the liberation of Iraq?

It's funny as hell to hear the French say "sanctions aren't working" - after signing multibillion dollar contracts with the target of the sanctions.

ok. that's an interesting spin to offer: Its all France's fault that Bush lied.

[kindbud]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
ok. that's an interesting spin to offer: Its all France's fault that Bush lied.

Don't forget Germany.



Ya know, I've decided to take the peacenik position at face value.

Tell me if I understand this correctly...

It would have been better to allow a tyrant like Saddam to continue to kill thousands innocent civilians than it was to allow a tyrant like Dubya to kill thousands of innocent civilians.

That pretty much sums it up.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
ok. that's an interesting spin to offer: Its all France's fault that Bush lied.

I didn't read the spin that way at all. I read it thus:

"No WMD after all? Um... er... hey, aren't the French just hopeless?"

[eklipse]

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by kindbud:
Don't forget Germany.



Ya know, I've decided to take the peacenik position at face value.

Tell me if I understand this correctly...

It would have been better to allow a tyrant like Saddam to continue to kill thousands innocent civilians than it was to allow a tyrant like Dubya to kill thousands of innocent civilians.

That pretty much sums it up.

yes,. that's a classic spin: anyone who disagrees with Bush wanted Saddam to remain in rule...

haven't you got anything newer than that?

[kindbud]

Don't need anything new if the old one still works good.

The peaceniks STILL have nothing to offer as a substitute for the 'liberation' that would have ended Saddam's rule effectively, decisively, and as quickly. Nothing, nada, zilch.

Oh yes. It's true. The peaceniks don't have their humanitarian foundation to stand on. Somebody accidentally brought the 'anti-Dubya' platform. and it ain't as solid.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by kindbud:
Don't need anything new if the old one still works good.

The peaceniks STILL have nothing to offer as a substitute for the 'liberation' that would have ended Saddam's rule effectively, decisively, and as quickly. Nothing, nada, zilch.

Oh yes. It's true. The peaceniks don't have their humanitarian foundation to stand on. Somebody accidentally brought the 'anti-Dubya' platform. and it ain't as solid.

ok...so your spin is:

Bush lied about WMds because peaceniks have no humanitarian foundation?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
With that being said, how do you explain the prior administration's case (which was almost exactly the same) against Iraq a few years earlier?

The WMD intelligence was recited repeatedly - I'll easily admit that, but the urgency was more a result of an overall attitude change on the national level after 9/11.

The same intelligence cited 3 years prior didn't come close to generating the same "we're not going to take Saddam's playing around with UN resolutions and weapons inspections any more" attitude that the nation rapidly developed after 9/11.

I don't think our leaders on both sides of the aisle were maintaining the same dishonesty over the past 5-10 years. They all looked at the same intelligence, and most derived the same conclusion: Saddam is in violation of his disarmament obligations and is continuing his WMD programs.

As for "clumsy diplomacy", the US had been going the diplomatic routes for 10+ years, so I don't know where this clumsy comes in. Once the huge, behind-the-back-of-the-UN contracts that France and Russia had established with Saddam came to light, I think it was apparent to the entire administration that "diplomacy" was going to come at a steep price

Should we have just given Russia ($8 billion), France ($3 billion), and Germany ($1.4 billion) the money owed to them by Saddam? Apparently, the administration wasn't playing that game.

And the "poor planning" - I don't know how much more planning could have been done. Plans have consistently been worked on since the first Gulf war. That's 10+ years of planning. And IMO I think our plans and contingencies have performed quite well. Compared to previous US reconstruction efforts, this reconstruction effort is outstanding.

Politically, Bush may pay for his decisions. But he knew that all along, and made his decisions based on what he felt was right. Blair too.

Good points, but I think there was a clear difference in emphasis, urgency, and scale in the rhetoric, the yellow-cake statement being just one example. There's compelling evidence that the intelligence community was pressured to tailor the intel to support the war agenda rather than vice versa. All one needs to do is contrast Powell's earlier speech with the later rhetoric, even though nothing had really changed on the ground. Did Saddam pose a potentially serious long-term threat? Yes - all seem to agree. Was it an urgent threat requiring a full-scale invasion? Apparently not, but the administration was almost alone in making it seem so.

9/11 did change attitudes, and for good reason. But that doesn't change the fact that Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11 and was being contained. Even if Iraq had been indirectly involved in 9/11, there was no compelling reason to withdraw the inspectors and invade at that particular moment, other than the fact that the administration had decided to do so no matter what.

Now, I happen to believe that there were a variety of good reasons for overthrowing Saddam. I think the administration did too, and that Bush believed in good faith that he was doing the right long-term thing. The problem is that if you do it under questionable pretenses, if you alienate major allies (you don't have to kow-tow to them, but a skillful leader often has ways of enlisting and/or manipulating them), if you fail to anticipate Turkey's position, if you fail to grasp the post-war political realities (not just reconstruction issues, but political issues), and so forth, there are serious consequences, and we're seeing those now.

I think Bush is to be applauded for putting greater pressure on Saddam and for being willing to take action. Even with the questionable rhetoric, I don't think a President would assume such enormous risks if he didn't have a good faith belief that it's the best long-term course. My problem is with the particular course taken. I realize that it's Monday morning quarterbacking, but one likes to think that when an administration decides to take action, it's doing so with a solid and honest grasp of the costs and risks. In my mind, that raises questions not so much about ideology, but competence. I still hope he proves me completely wrong.

I think a lot of the hand-wringing on the left would be appeased if the pro-war contingent said "You know what? They're politicians, they probably did exaggerate the WMD rhetoric. But they did it for the right reasons, those being the overthrow of a brutal, dangerous dictator, the liberation of millions of people and possibly, just possibly, positive long-term change in the Middle East." There would still be disagreement over the results but at least the debate would be more about the results than who-said-what-when.

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
what will be the official spin, or what will be the spin of various bush apologists here on board? speculate or provide your own spin.

I"d be interested in seeing how apologists will demonstrate that Bush, Rumsfeld, and Powell did NOT lie.

*pulls up a chair and pops some popcorn* [/B]

The only spin you are putting on this is that WMD's were the sole reason for going to war.

Your man Weasley Clark felt that it was ok to go into Kosovo for one of the many reasons we decided to go into Iraq.

How is Iraq any different?

[christ]

Originally posted by kindbud:
Tell me if I understand this correctly...

It would have been better to allow a tyrant like Saddam to continue to kill thousands innocent civilians than it was to allow a tyrant like Dubya to kill thousands of innocent civilians.

That pretty much sums it up.

Yup, you understand it correctly.

The difference is that Saddam was the ruler of the innocent civilians, not an invader.

It would have been even better if Saddam was not allowed to continue to kill, nor actively helped in this aim by the sanctions, but removal of a corrupt or despotic regime is difficult while still leaving intact the framework of international relations.

Its a good thing for your philosophy that your president doesn't appear to give a flying fig for international relations, because he's the 800 lb gorilla, and he can do what he wants. This is not, generally, the best way to make lasting friends (although you will make short-term suck-up friends),

[christ]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I don't believe Clinton was lying when he made such statements. I think he was trying to say, both men believed this. There had to be a reason.

I don't believe either one was lying at the time.

Say I believe there are UFOs. I show proof as to why I believe that.

A year later someone tells me there is no UFOs and has proof. Does that make me a liar?

Silly.

Say the proof of the UFOs came from someone whose job depended on the existence of UFOs.

Say you go ahead and invade another sovereign country, while wearing your tinfoil anti-alien hat, and kill 10,000 innocent folk.

A year later someone tells you there is no UFOs and has proof. That might not make you a liar, but it should make you feel a teensy bit guilty.

Especially if you had a good idea that your 'proof' may be a tad suspect in the first place.

But no, Zimph, you carry on and sleep the sleep of the (non-discriminating) righteous. Sophistry will not help when judgment comes.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
The only spin you are putting on this is that WMD's were the sole reason for going to war.

Your man Weasley Clark felt that it was ok to go into Kosovo for one of the many reasons we decided to go into Iraq.

How is Iraq any different?

well, that's more a misdirection than a spin...

again, How do you spin that Bush lied?

almost none of you want to touch that reality with a ten foot pole, dancing everywhere else except on that issue.

Bush lied.

Obviously, completely, and inarguably he lied.

None of you are addressing that.

Whether WMD is the reason for the war or not, Bush lied that his information on WMD was accurate and ironclad.

address THAT.

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Bush lied.

If Bush told a bald faced lie to go to war with Iraq wouldn't he at least of tried to cover his tracks? I know you say he's stupid but he' aint' that dumb.

If Bush lied then:

So did Clinton, Gore, the U.N.

Your man Gebbie lied.

Face it, you just don't like Bush. Time to pony up chump.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
If Bush told a bald faced lie to go to war with Iraq wouldn't he at least of tried to cover his tracks? I know you say he's stupid but he' aint' that dumb.

If Bush lied then:

So did Clinton, Gore, the U.N.

Your man Gebbie lied.

Face it, you just don't like Bush. Time to pony up chump.

spin #312: Bush didn't lie because Lerk hates bush.

I"m overwhelmed by your masteful command of logic