[villalobos]

From the mouth of the Polish President himself. The article in in French, but in substance Alexander Kwasniewski said 'The fact that we have been misled about WMD's is true. We have been lied to.' He adds that he does not intend to withdraw his troops from Irak, which I agree with given the situation at the moment.

Interesting to see one of the most enthusiastic allies of the US to recognize the 'misleading'. Can Presidents be ousted of power when then lie to their constituents and other countries in the world? They are in Spain, that's for sure.

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,...-357311,0.html

villa

[Developer]

He is also more open to compromise regarding the constitution. Interesting.

[villalobos]

Incidentally CNN picked up the story, albeit using a very much more subdued translation of the Polish president declaration. It would be interesting to see who is closer to the Truth. Anyhow, this article should allow our English readers on this forum to participate and comment on this interesting turn of event...


http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe...raq/index.html

villa

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by villalobos:
Incidentally CNN picked up the story, albeit using a very much more subdued translation of the Polish president declaration. It would be interesting to see who is closer to the Truth. Anyhow, this article should allow our English readers on this forum to participate and comment on this interesting turn of event...


http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe...raq/index.html

villa

I guess we got one Kerry backer that has just about come out and said, he's our man!
What does the President of Poland have to say about Clinton stating Iraq had WMDs?
The rest of the world "leaders". That name takes a whole new meaning when used in conjunction with the term world...

[zachs]

The New York Times has the story as well, with additional quotes from President Kwasniewski here:

Poland 'Misled' on Iraq, President Says
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: March 18, 2004

Filed at 3:03 p.m. ET

WARSAW, Poland (AP) -- President Aleksander Kwasniewski, a key Washington ally, said Thursday he may withdraw troops early from Iraq and that Poland was ``misled'' about the threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

His remarks to a small group of European reporters were his first hint of criticism about war in Iraq, where Poland currently has 2,400 troops and with the United States and Britain commands one of three sectors of the U.S.-led occupation.

Advertisement

``Naturally, one may protest the reasons for the war action in Iraq. I personally think that today, Iraq without Saddam Hussein is a truly better Iraq than with Saddam Hussein,'' Kwasniewski told the European reporters.

``But naturally I also feel uncomfortable due to the fact that we were misled with the information on weapons of mass destruction,'' he said, according to a transcript released by the presidential press office.

President Bush, in the chow line with troops at Fort Campbell, Ky., after delivering a speech, was asked about Kwasniewski's remarks but shook his head and said, ``I'm here to eat.''

[Zimphire]

Heh, this has as much credibility as someone in here saying "BUSH LIED!!!"

But some will grab onto anything. Esp if it's Bush bashing.

I have YET seen ONE person PROVE that Bush lied. Not ONE. But they will SURE act like it's a fact.

So dishonest. The irony.

"Bush LIED!!" er so are you.

Unless one can prove Iraq did NOT have said weapons at the time said information was taken, or that Bush intentionally made stuff up, there is no case.

Just mud flinging and anti-Bush silliness.

[ghost_flash]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0513/p08s01-wome.html

[Captain Obvious]

Cause its hard to fool a Polak?

[zachs]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0513/p08s01-wome.html

a.) We invaded because Hussein was supposedly a threat to the U.S. Doesn't mean Hussein wasn't a terrible, brutal dictator - he was; but that wasn't why we invaded.

b.) Saddam may not have been behind the gassing; evidence suggests the Iranians may have been responsible.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
Cause its hard to fool a Polak?

BOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0513/p08s01-wome.html

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
Cause its hard to fool a Polak?

I'm suprised it took so long for someone to say it.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0513/p08s01-wome.html

[theolein]

Whoops, there goes Poland...

[theolein]

Whoops, there goes South Korea

[ghost_flash]

Yep. There they go. Two supporters of Kerry.

[undotwa]

Poland was a major supporter of the United States. If he did say this, it is quite important.

[Spliffdaddy]

whatever will we do without them.

[Developer]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Yep. There they go. Two supporters of Kerry.

You are so pathetic.

[Developer]

Originally posted by theolein:
Whoops, there goes South Korea

It's interesting to see that now that the Spanish people ousted the Partida Popular how other government's bottom goes on ground ice. Insofar that election had a world wide corrective effect on other democracies.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Yep. There they go. Two supporters of Kerry.

Last I heard, Kerry now supports keeping our troops in Iraq.

Another 180°

[villalobos]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Heh, this has as much credibility as someone in here saying "BUSH LIED!!!"

I think you are giving yourself a little too much credit.. Just a little tad bit too much.......

villa

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by villalobos:
I think you are giving yourself a little too much credit.. Just a little tad bit too much.......

villa

Giving myself too much credit? Huh?

I said him saying such a thing has about as much credibility (Meaning none) as someone in here saying it.

So it wasn't that spectacular of a news event.

It had nothing to do with my credibility.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Developer:
You are so pathetic.

Look in the mirror.

[Zimphire]

I know you are, but what am I.

I'm rubber your glue

Your momma has a kickstand.

Ok, now we got that out of our systems.

[coolmacdude]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Yep. There they go. Two supporters of Kerry.

Nowhere in that article does it say that South Korea supports Kerry.

[villalobos]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Giving myself too much credit? Huh?

I said him saying such a thing has about as much credibility (Meaning none) as someone in here saying it.

My guess is that he was probably given a few details on the US plan than you or anybody on this forum. And given he actually is a stakeholder in this war, unlike you or anybody on this forum, I would think that his opinion has a tad bit higher value than what you, or anybody or this forum, can come up with (and yes this includes myself ).
This is news, very interesting news for that matter. As developper noted, it seems that some governments are finally starting to feel the vox populi pressure. Nobody can deny that : might be a good or a bad thing but that is the way democracy is supposed to work You betray, you pay.

villa

[Zimphire]

Villa if he has proof that Bush lied why hasn't he shown any then? It's easy to say "I am sure he knows more than us"

But the simple fact is, he called him a liar, without proof.

That is known as slander.

[paully dub]

Not only is Poland an important ally of the US, but it's a part of what Rumsfeld was referring to when he made that infamous old Europe new Europe statment a while back. The gist being, we don't really need the support of France and Germany when we count on our new Eastern European buddies.

Problem is those guys get pissed when we mess them them as well. Polish people didn't want any part of that war. But they do appreciate what it means to be a part of NATO.

Now things are all spierdolony...

[villalobos]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Villa if he has proof that Bush lied why hasn't he shown any then? It's easy to say "I am sure he knows more than us"

But the simple fact is, he called him a liar, without proof.

That is known as slander.

My guess is that he did not himself look for proof about the WMDs. Which makes him look like a fool. But I think many people look like fools right now regarding the mightyness of the Iraqi army.
But I don't think HE is the one who needs to show the evidences about the WMDs. Bush is. And he has come up with... nothing. Whereas he and his accolytes (rumsfeld comes to mind) were so 'sure' of where the WMDs were. Just like Saddam was supposed to show that he disposed of them, Bush is now supposed to show that he did not. Kinda funny how it works eh?

Villa

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by villalobos:

But I don't think HE is the one who needs to show the evidences about the WMDs. Bush is. And he has come up with... nothing. Whereas he and his accolytes (rumsfeld comes to mind) were so 'sure' of where the WMDs were. Just like Saddam was supposed to show that he disposed of them, Bush is now supposed to show that he did not. Kinda funny how it works eh?

Villa

Actually neither of them needed to come up with anything to justify the war.

The fact that iraq failed to comply with the UN for 12 years was justification enough.

Remember it was up to Iraq to not only get rid of said weapons, but also show proof.

We don't know they did the first, because they never did that latter. Had they did the latter, The invasion wouldn't have happened.

[paully dub]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Villa if he has proof that Bush lied why hasn't he shown any then? It's easy to say "I am sure he knows more than us"

But the simple fact is, he called him a liar, without proof.

That is known as slander.

I think it's quite clear, that if not lies - certain pre-war assertions made by the administration have been proven exaagerrated or plainly wrong. Now was Bush lying, or did he just not care. We know he doesn't even read the paper, so the Reaganesque cloak of ignorance seems plausible...

[villalobos]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

The fact that iraq failed to comply with the UN for 12 years was justification enough.

It did not seem that the UN thought that way.

villa

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by paully dub:
I think it's quite clear, that if not lies - certain pre-war assertions made by the administration have been proven exaagerrated or plainly wrong. Now was Bush lying, or did he just not care. We know he doesn't even read the paper, so the Reaganesque cloak of ignorance seems plausible...

Would you say that Clinton was lying, or exaggerating or just didn't care when he made similar statements?

"The president urged Americans to be ready for a possible attack on Iraq, and he warned that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had used biological weapons against his own people -- and would likely use the weapons again unless he were prevented from doing so.

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."

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

He accused Iraq of trying to thwart U.N. inspections by reinterpreting the meaning of Gulf War resolutions as to which sites can be inspected, for how long and by which inspectors.

Clinton, who has ordered military forces to the gulf region in case a military strike is needed, warned Hussein not to continue to delay or oppose the U.N. demands on weapons inspections: "He, and he alone, will be to blame for the consequences."

"A military operation cannot destroy all the weapons of mass destruction capacity. But it can, and will, leave him (Hussein) significantly worse off than he is now, in terms of the ability to threaten the world with these weapons or to attack his neighbors," Clinton said.

"Force can never be the first answer," he emphasized, "but sometimes it's the only answer."

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/17/iraq.clinton/

Or maybe Clinton was told the very same things Bush was.

[paully dub]

Originally posted by villalobos:
It did not seem that the UN thought that way.

villa

Yes but we have all learned how irrelevant the UN is..

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by villalobos:
It did not seem that the UN thought that way.

villa

Indeed they did. They just wanted to keep on extending Iraq more time. "He'll eventually give up"

If the UN didn't think he had anything, they wouldn't have kept sending teams out there to search for it.

[villalobos]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Remember it was up to Iraq to not only get rid of said weapons, but also show proof.

No matter how you want to look at it, Bush made declarations about WMDs that have not been confirmed, and apparently will not be (i say apparently). He made his case in front of the International community, MOSTLY relying on the WMDs (might have been somewhat different on the interior front but that is how he try to sell the war on the international front). It is legitimate that people now question his arguments. It is also legitimate that people who believed in the 'proofs' showed by Colin Powell question the above proof. And it is very legitimate for them to actually believe that they have been misled.

And I would expect the coalition force to show the rest of the world these WMDs. It is called accountability. And it defines your credibility. No accountability, no credibility.
Saddam had very little (and maybe he was worthy of having a little more), Bush is not having much.

villa

[paully dub]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Would you say that Clinton was lying, or exaggerating or just didn't care when he made similar statements?

"The president urged Americans to be ready for a possible attack on Iraq, and he warned that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had used biological weapons against his own people -- and would likely use the weapons again unless he were prevented from doing so.

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."

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

He accused Iraq of trying to thwart U.N. inspections by reinterpreting the meaning of Gulf War resolutions as to which sites can be inspected, for how long and by which inspectors.

Clinton, who has ordered military forces to the gulf region in case a military strike is needed, warned Hussein not to continue to delay or oppose the U.N. demands on weapons inspections: "He, and he alone, will be to blame for the consequences."

"A military operation cannot destroy all the weapons of mass destruction capacity. But it can, and will, leave him (Hussein) significantly worse off than he is now, in terms of the ability to threaten the world with these weapons or to attack his neighbors," Clinton said.

"Force can never be the first answer," he emphasized, "but sometimes it's the only answer."

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/17/iraq.clinton/

Or maybe Clinton was told the very same things Bush was.

The sad thing is that if handled differently, with more respect for our allies the evenual prospect of a war may have had a lot more support. Bush didn't seem to have the patience for any kind of real international diplomacy.

I truly believe the compelling argument in favor of war was lost in the belligerance for the Bush administration... In fact if it hadn't been for Blair, Bush would've harldy bothered with the UN at all..

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by villalobos:
No matter how you want to look at it, Bush made declarations about WMDs that have not been confirmed,

Why wasn't the community concerned when Clinton made the same declarations, DIDN'T EVEN ASK UN APPROVAL, then bombed the crap out of Iraq?

Where was the angst? Where was the LIAR claims?

This is just political zealousness.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by paully dub:
The sad thing is that if handled differently, with more respect from our allies the evenual prospect of a war may have had a lot more support.

You mean like France and Germany? Pshhhaw they did the disrespecting first.

Bush didn't seem to have the patience ofr any kind of real international diplomacy.

Again, 12 years of trying to do it the "peaceful way" came up nothing.

If 12 years isn't patience, I don't know what is.

I truly believe the compelling argument in favor of war was lost in the belligerance fo the Bush administration... In fact if it hadn't been for Blair, Bush would've harldy bothered with the UN at all..

No, I think he would have. Not that I think he needed to.

Clinton obviously didn't think he did.

Rightfully so.

No matter about my feelings about Clinton, I stood behind his actions against Iraq.

Even if they were a bit spineless.

[villalobos]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Why wasn't the community concerned when Clinton made the same declarations, DIDN'T EVEN ASK UN APPROVAL, then bombed the crap out of Iraq?

Where was the angst? Where was the LIAR claims?

This is just political zealousness.

I think the community was concerned. They actually sent in inspectors to verify these claims. Saddam send these inspectors packing. Then the community threatened Saddam, with the positive action of Bush : the inspectors were back in Iraq. They still did not find anything, in spite of repeated comments from the US government members that they knew that Saddam had WMDs, and knew where they were (kinda stupid in retrospect innit?), asked for more time but were sent packing by the US (once again, isn't funny how it works?). Bush and the coalition decided on fighting the war, killing several thousands innocent civilian people. There should be some scrutiny about the motives and the 'case for the war', don't you think?

Btw, Clinton bombed the 'crap out of Iraq'? LOL. I thought the guy never did anything about Iraq.

villa

[paully dub]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

You mean like France and Germany? Pshhhaw they did the disrespecting first.
[/b]
Again, 12 years of trying to do it the "peaceful way" came up nothing.

If 12 years isn't patience, I don't know what is.

No, I think he would have. Not that I think he needed to.

Clinton obviously didn't think he did.

Rightfully so.

No matter about my feelings about Clinton, I stood behind his actions against Iraq.

Even if they were a bit spineless. [/B]

I give up. Clinton didn't go to war, or overthrow a government, then occupy said country while installing a new one.

Seems a bit more serious, in fact seems like the kind of thing you'd want to have your good old UN in on. Because say things don't go as smoothly as you planned, and you need the help of your allies...

But you're right, this was obviously the only way to go about it... and the world really is a safer place for it.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by villalobos:
I think the community was concerned.

Somewhat. Not at the scale you saw before the invasion. Before Iraq was attacked.

They actually sent in inspectors to verify these claims. Saddam send these inspectors packing.

Now why would Saddam do such a thing if he had nothing to hide?

Then the community threatened Saddam, with the positive action of Bush : the inspectors were back in Iraq. They still did not find anything, in spite of repeated comments from the US government members that they knew that Saddam had WMDs, and knew where they were (kinda stupid in retrospect innit?),

Ok, I put a needle in the middle of a haystack. If you can't find it, does it mean it's not there?

asked for more time but were sent packing by the US (once again, isn't funny how it works?).

Yeah, after 12 years of non-compliance, I'd be pretty fed up too. If Iraq got rid of said weapons, why didn't they just show proof? They could have blocked this all from happening. They knew that too. Seems a bit fishy to me.

Bush and the coalition decided on fighting the war, killing several thousands innocent civilian people.

In the process, saving many thousands more lives. Maybe even millions. Again, This could have been stopped. Saddam was even told he could make it stop when he wanted, He choose not to.

There should be some scrutiny about the motives and the 'case for the war', don't you think?

Scrutiny? Yes. All out attack because he isn't on "Your side" no.

Btw, Clinton bombed the 'crap out of Iraq'? LOL. I thought the guy never did anything about Iraq.

villa

Are you being serious as to tell me you don't know what Clinton's actions on Iraq was, or the history?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by paully dub:
I give up. Clinton didn't go to war, or overthrow a government, then occupy said country while installing a new one.

When people were ranting about Bush saying Iraq had WMDs, either had he at the time.

But you're right, this was obviously the only way to go about it... and the world really is a safer place for it.

'
Not the only way. But the way Saddam indeed picked.

[villalobos]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Somewhat. Not at the scale you saw before the invasion. Before Iraq was attacked.
[/b]
Now why would Saddam do such a thing if he had nothing to hide?

That is open to debate. you can argue it's because it actually had something to hide. You can argue it is a question of 'political pride' : he does not want to see foreign inspectors search freely through the country. It was undermining his authority too much?

Ok, I put a needle in the middle of a haystack. If you can't find it, does it mean it's not there?
[/b]

No, but I won't burn the haystack in order to know if its there or not.

Yeah, after 12 years of non-compliance, I'd be pretty fed up too. If Iraq got rid of said weapons, why didn't they just show proof? They could have blocked this all from happening. They knew that too. Seems a bit fishy to me.
[/b]

Yeah but you'd better make SURE it is fishy before waging a war, especially when the international community is suspicious. And then you'd better show how good the reasons were once you won the war...

In the process, saving many thousands more lives. Maybe even millions. Again, This could have been stopped. Saddam was even told he could make it stop when he wanted, He choose not to.
[/b]
Scrutiny? Yes. All out attack because he isn't on "Your side" no.

Yes saving lives too. At the end it might even out. Although one can't stop wondering whether there was another way of getting rid of Saddam. One might also wondering what the ultimate motivations of people who initially supported Saddam, as he already was a brutal dictator, were for them to topple him. There is such a loaded history between the western countries and Saddam, that there is a legitimate need of proofs that this time is was for the good of humanity, and not for oil/political purpose or what not. The fact and the matter is that, no matter how good the conseuquences of the war can be, or will be, the reasons given to wage the war look very much wrong as of now.

Are you being serious as to tell me you don't know what Clinton's actions on Iraq was, or the history? [/B]

Let;s say it is a common thought amongs certain people in this forum, and amongst the more conservative media. So it does surprise me when you say 'bombing the crap out of Iraq' (kinda exaggarated as well, I think).

villa

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by villalobos:
That is open to debate. you can argue it's because it actually had something to hide. You can argue it is a question of 'political pride' : he does not want to see foreign inspectors search freely through the country. It was undermining his authority too much?

Naw, or he wouldn't have let them in in the first place.

No, but I won't burn the haystack in order to know if its there or not.

The whole haystack wasn't burned. Small parts were removed.

Yeah but you'd better make SURE it is fishy before waging a war, especially when the international community is suspicious. And then you'd better show how good the reasons were once you won the war...

Again we had our reason for 12 years. Iraq not complying was reason enough. People either don't understand that, or refuse to. To them, Iraq isn't guilty of not complying and showing proof, the US is for not finding exact proof, even though that was never the USs job.

Yes saving lives too. At the end it might even out. Although one can't stop wondering whether there was another way of getting rid of Saddam.

We tried everything short of assassination. We even asked him to get out.

One might also wondering what the ultimate motivations of people who initially supported Saddam, as he already was a brutal dictator, were for them to topple him.

I think that goes with the tin foil hate theories.

There is such a loaded history between the western countries and Saddam, that there is a legitimate need of proofs that this time is was for the good of humanity, and not for oil/political purpose or what not. The fact and the matter is that, no matter how good the conseuquences of the war can be, or will be, the reasons given to wage the war look very much wrong as of now.

Again, Iraq no complying for 12 years was good enough. Agree or not. Even the UN said the US had the RIGHT, just not their approval.

Let;s say it is a common thought amongs certain people in this forum, and amongst the more conservative media. So it does surprise me when you say 'bombing the crap out of Iraq' (kinda exaggarated as well, I think).

villa

It's common that Clinton never done anything to Iraq? really?

He did indeed bomb them.

[Captain Obvious]

You guys are stupid. This was not about oil and it wasn't about WMD. Those are the top two things cited by idiots who can't understand the complexity of the situation in that region and how it pertains to us. This was about securing a strategic area in the middle east to try and plant a seed of Western values and favoritism. Afghanistan wasn't going to cut it for this purpose. Iraq was the only real viable alternative since there were no real supporters or fans of Hussein. We couldn't very well go over throwing Saudi Arabia or Iran. The factions in Iraq and relative modernism of the nation made the most favorable conditions for our needs.

Was it a premature war, yes. But was it necessary at some point, absolutely. 9/11 and the tide of support that followed was the best chance for any administration to try and pull this off. A democracy in the Middle East would be a nice thing to have out there so we can stick military bases in, plant roots for intelligence agencies, and westernize the region so people don't go all kamikaze on our ass, or at least as often. The oil and weapons are easy concepts for people to grasp but really they are just garnish to the real purposes. Until we can get the someone in the region to sell out the people there don't have much to lose by hating Westerners. Once they are more like us they probably will be controllable.

Poland of all places should shut its trap. If they hadn't had the Solidarity movement Eastern Europe would still suck. If anyone should realize that prosperity comes from selling out to consumerism through democracy its Poland.

[villalobos]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Indeed they did. They just wanted to keep on extending Iraq more time. "He'll eventually give up"

If the UN didn't think he had anything, they wouldn't have kept sending teams out there to search for it.

Reread what you wrote. You were talking about justifying the war. A majority of the UN council were opposed to the war at that time. They were favorable indeed for giving the inspectors more time, and that is was should have been done.

villa

[villalobos]

It's common that Clinton never done anything to Iraq? really?

He did indeed bomb them. [/B]

But you think that he bombed 'the crap out of them'?

villa

[villalobos]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Again we had our reason for 12 years. Iraq not complying was reason enough. People either don't understand that, or refuse to. To them, Iraq isn't guilty of not complying and showing proof, the US is for not finding exact proof, even though that was never the USs job.

Again, Iraq no complying for 12 years was good enough. Agree or not. Even the UN said the US had the RIGHT, just not their approval.

He did indeed bomb them.

To the US maybe, not to a majority of the international community. And that's fine. Just don't be surprised when people get suspicious towards Bush. And don't be all offended when people are criticizing the unilateralism. Like you said, US thought they had good enough reasons, therefore they will do whatever they think it's right. This is unilateralism. It gives latitude. It triggers lots of criticisms.

villa