Toad - you wanted proof? It's live right now

[10Bears]

Remind us again what was violated in resolution 1441?

[Blammo]

Funny...the way it works, Congress sees the same intel reports that the President and his Cabinet (with the exception of one report that has to do with daily threat levels).  So, Congress saw the same info and votes, by a vast majority, in favor of the Iraq invasion.  I guess Congress specifically twisted and distorted the information as well.  That would include some of our "favorite" liberals in Congress, mind you.

Additionally, Saddam was required "by UN resolution" to provide evidence of the destruction of his NBC weapons programs.  The terms of that resolution stated, in no uncertain terms, that failure to comply would result in the resumption of hostilities.  Yes, it left wiggle room to give ole Saddam a chance, but the intention is clear.  Saddam has admitted that he purposely and with malice declined to adhere to the UN resolutions he agreed to in the first place.

Saddam had WMDs in 1990.  We have nothing to suggest that he did not have them anymore.  Former president William Jefferson Clinton confirmed that the information President George W. Bush cited was the same information he (Clinton) saw on his desk all through his administration...after all, that is why he maintained the no-fly zone and authorized several raids against Iraq.  Guess the Clinton adminstration was lying too?


I am sick and friggin tired of all these babies that aren't getting their way and don't have "their guy" in the White House, or a majority in Congress and so they go around crying over anything and everything.  To the point that they are willing to see the USA destroyed rather let some one they don't like do some good.

One person knows for sure whether Saddam had WMDs: Saddam.  Human error being what it is, everything thing else, no matter how good the intel, is a best guess based on the information at hand.

Get over the idea that everyone is a liar just because your favorite politicians are.  Maybe George Dubya lied...and if he did, he needs to be held accountable.  But unless some one can prove it, we still live in the UNITED STATES of AMERICA where a man (even the President) is presumed innocent until proven guilty.


Go ahead...spew out some more garbage.  I am sure there are plenty, like you, that are just waiting to slurp it up and regurgitate it back out.

[miko2d]

Bodhi: What an arse, you sound almost happy that this may be the case.  Yet, it will not be the first time a bunch of cover ups went on in the Congress.  Time will tell.

 If that is true - that the intelligence community warned the administration about the absense of credible evidence - that certainly makes me happy.

 Having only a corrupt administration that would lie the country into an agressive war is vastly preferable to having a corrupt intelligence community that would willingly cooperate with corrupt administration in lying the country into an agressive war.


because everyone knew the day would come when the idiots in the White House would not find WMD

 Too bad none of them had the guts to stand up and say so when Powel was testifying.


GScholz: So does this mean that the French, Germans and Russians were right when dismissing your "evidence" as unreliable? Will you apologize to them and the world for illegally invading another nation based on faulty intelligence?

....


Toad: Libya a decade ago? I don't think so.

 How about this - from the Jude Wanniski - Why the Pentagon Needs Villains

...Libya and Qaddafi have been trying to reach a diplomatic solution to their differences with the USA for years -- ever since it became clear the Cold War was ending with their patrons in Moscow on the losing side.

 Gary Hart, a Senate Democrat from Colorado who won the New Hampshire presidential primary in 1984 and for awhile looked like he might be the nominee, on Sunday wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post, “My Secret Talks With Libya, and Why They Went Nowhere.” He was approached by Libyans in 1992 when he was a private citizen, they asking him to serve as intermediary with the US State Department to work out a diplomatic resolution to the estrangement. It is a role Jimmy Carter has played in similar situations.

Hart worked at it for several months, but no matter how open-ended the offers from Tripoli, the State Department was not interested. Hart tells me he has always assumed the administration preferred to have Libya remain “a villain.”

Bodhi: I will vote for when the French, German, and Russian Governments admit to illegally supplying the Iraqi's with weapons and ammunition after a ban on such sales.

 You sure you do not want them to appologize for not suplying enough weaponry to Iraq to be able to defend itself from unjust aggression?
 Isn't that their responcibility under NPT? When a nuke-armed country attacks a country that agreed not to aquire nukes, shouldn't the other nuclear countries provide defence for it?


Saurdaukar: You cant prove a negative. Prove to me that WMD dont exist in Iraq. I wont hold my breath.

 But that is not the issue. US invaded not because there could have been WMDs in Iraq but because it claimed to have evidence.
 It is proven that US did not and does not have evidence - by its failure to present any.


Toad: Now, both of you, if 5 years from now after the world decides Bush and Blair were wrong, Syria comes clean and gives up some old Iraqi WMD

 I am sure it will. That "old Iraqi WMD" is probably being manufactured right now in New Jersey and my tax money is being collected to pay Syria for "owning up to it".
 I do not believe it will be found in 5 years, though - most likely it will be found 2 weeks before November elections.

 miko

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by miko2d


 How about this - from the Jude Wanniski - Why the Pentagon Needs Villains



 miko

Not bad, for an editorial (An opinion)

[Toad]

Dr David Kay's Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee

You guys might as well read it all.

But, for 10Bears, from the preliminary remarks:

In my judgment, based on the work that has been done to this point of the Iraq Survey Group, and in fact, that I reported to you in October, Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of Resolution 1441. Resolution 1441 required that Iraq report all of its activities: one last chance to come clean about what it had.

We have discovered hundreds of cases, based on both documents, physical evidence and the testimony of Iraqis, of activities that were prohibited under the initial U.N. Resolution 687 and that should have been reported under 1441, with Iraqi testimony that not only did they not tell the U.N. about this, they were instructed not to do it and they hid material.

[Toad]

Well, Miko, to me actions speak louder than words.

December 21, 1988, Libya sponsored the bombing of Pan Am 103. 1991 US and Britain accused Libyan secret agent Abdel Baset al-Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah of the mass murder. In 1992 the Libyans approach Hart to plead their case with the US Government, when no mean old conspiring Republicans held the White House.

If they wanted to kiss-kiss, be nice and make up, I guess they could have just handed over Abdel Baset al-Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah when Hart was trying to make their case.

That would have had a better chance of success, don't you think?

Instead, they waited until August 14 2003 to admit culpability.

Topping this off is the aforementioned purchase of nuke tech from the Pakistani in the late '90's. Which is something else the US intel community was watching.

Hard to make up with someone that blows airliners out of the sky and attempts to violate the NPT while denying it.

Just my .02.

Libya could have had rapproachment a long time ago IF they really had wanted to do so.

[miko2d]

Toad: Well, Miko, to me actions speak louder than words.
 If they wanted to kiss-kiss, be nice and make up, I guess they could have just handed over Abdel Baset al-Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah when Hart was trying to make their case....

 I guess they could.
 But did we really wanted them? The Cold War ended, the whole military and industrial complex with its enourmous influence was due to be scrapped.

 A good - or at least credible to the gullible US public - enemy was worth its weight in gold. How come you are ready to believe that the foreign scoundrels are the ones breaking the peace talks but not the domestic scoundrels that stand to make trillions from it?

 I've actually read the conditions of the US-North Korea agreement of 94 to know that whatever NK did, the US did not discharge it's obligations and had no intention of do so.

 Libya must have wanted some guarantees for the reconciliatory jestures it offered US. After all, such steps are not free to them but very expensive politically.
 If they unilaterally gave in to US, without a show of dignified negotiations or reciprocal jestures, the regime would have lost all respect and earned a lot of internal enemies among fundamantalists. If US were not there to compensate for it with opening trade or some other action, the regime would have fallen.

 History is full of such examples.

 Saddam Hussein did not have any WMDs and he was destroying his missiles days before US invaded anyway. He was giving up instead of preparing to fight - and that only encouraged US.

 When Germany agreed to the armstice in 1918 and laid down the weapons, the brits and french did not stop the blockade of german ports.
 Thousands of german woman and children starved to death for no reason whatsoever in peacetime - just because of the spite of brits and french. Then it was made to assume the full responsibility for starting the war - which was started by Serba, Austria, Russia and France before Germany ever got dragged in due to allied obligations - and pay for it, which subjected the people to more deprivations.
 No wonder that the reconcilatory regimes failed in favor of nazis.

 Some american indians sold their land, did not get the money, got starved without land or money, rebelled to get the land back and were exterminated.

 miko

[Nakhui]

Originally posted by miko2d
Miko:  History is full of such examples.

What revisionist history book are you reading?
Can I get an ISBN please.

[Capt. Pork]

Originally posted by Sikboy
Hmmm, I would be much happier if this were the case. I'd much rather have WMD in Iraq turn out to be the "spoonfull of sugar that helps the policy go down." Much better for this to be the result of an administration willing to do anything to remove Sadam From Power than to be the result of REALLY REALLY ****ty intel. Which is easier to fix, the administration or the Intel system?

I guess we'll find out in November.

-Sik

My girlfriend is from Fairfax.

[Dowding]

What's with the 'mean old USA' thing, Toad? If you can't post without the Grunherzian overtones, I won't bother to engage in future. And you still haven't told me who I'm supposed to apologise to... you perhaps?

Gary Hart - that was his name. I was wracking my brains trying to think who the guy was so I could dig up some sources re-telling the story. Why was there no pursuit of the Hart angle? Surely it was worth at least some effort to see how serious the Libyans were.

[Toad]

It was "mean old Republicans in the White House" wasn't it? Oh, wait.. I see I did say mean old US too. Well, just trying to save some of the electronic ink. I mean, haven't you heard? Bush is worse than Hitler. It's true. I read it right here on this BBS. Just thought we'd get that out of the way right off.

Engage? Why we've only just met! There's got to be some candlelight dinners and stuff at least.

Apologize? Well I think GS wanted me or us or the USA or something to apologize to the French, Germans and Russians. So you or them or something can apologize to the Americans. Ask Scholz just how this is supposed to work; it's his idea.

Now, the Hart angle? Well, let's see. As I said, the US and Britain had just accused Libya of state sponsored terrorism in '91. This Hart thing is post-election right? Clinton in the White House. So why would Clinton not follow up on this offer presented by a fellow Democrat? My only guess would be because of Pan Am 103 and the Libyans denial of involvement.

[Dowding]

OK, engage was the wrong word. A bit too Top Gun or gay or both.

You seem to be mistakening me for someone who really cares about your two party system (I barely have any interest in the British 2 and half party system as it is). Before Bush II came along, I really couldn't care less about who was in the White House. Clinton, Bush or Bush II it doesn't matter. But the thing about this Iraq war is that we've been pulled into it and the issues surrounding have become a little more interesting for me. So when it is claimed Libya have backed down because of the Iraq invasion, it's interesting to see that, in actual fact, it could have been done much earlier or at least attempted without the need for 750 Coalition dead and thousands of dead Iraqis.

The 'Bush is Hitler' argument is a straw man if ever there was one.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Sikboy
And surprisingly enough I'm not one.

-Sik

...but if you keep disagreeing with Bodhi, you will be.

[Kieran]

Gscholz-

Yes, the US owes Germany, France, and Russia an apology over the apparent non-existence of WMD.

Germany, France, and Russia owe the US an apology for turning the other way on Iraq's disobedience on 1441.

Fair deal? After all, if you want to believe part of the Kaye report, better be prepared to face it all. I can- can you?

[Toad]

Originally posted by Dowding
You seem to be mistakening me for someone who really cares about your two party system (

I'm not mistaking you for anyone at all. Your interest in our two party system is irrelevant.

Point is that a Democratic administration, particularly Clinton's, would be much more open to dialogue with Libya than say Reagan's or Bush I's. Yet even Clinton apparently would have nothing to do with the Libya/Hart proposal.

You asked for a reason for that. Quite obviously, IMO, that reason was Pan Am 103. Libya had just been accused of state sponsored terroism. No one, not Reagan, Bush I or Clinton would "normalize" relations in that situation without some accountability or atonement from Libya.

In other words, like so many other tin-pot dictators, Ghadaffi misjudged his situation and his "negotiating power".

The idea that it "could have been done much earlier" is totally dependent on LIBYA, not the USA. Had Libya confessed it's guilt, apologized, come clean about it's weapons programs (yeah, they were trying to acquire nukes back then too; took till the late '90's to find someone that would help them circumvent the NPT) maybe things would have been different.

It wasn't OUR responsibility to wipe the slate clean and give them "one more chance". Blowing an airliner out of the sky isn't a misdemeanor.

 
Remember also that the argument is not and never has been that we invaded Iraq to get Libya to give up it's WMD programs. We invaded Iraq to end Iraqi WMD programs. Admittedly the jury is still out on that, but we're nearing the end of the discussion now.
 

The 'Bush is Hitler' argument is a straw man if ever there was one.

Indeed. Put "Bush AND Hitler" in the BBS search specifying "The O-Club". Seven pages of threads.