WMD just a convenient excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz

[GRUNHERZ]

But, but, but I thought Bush  as Hitler would never let such a thing happend..

Lemme guess if the Senate finds nothing wrong then you will say it is proof the Bush/Hitler regime pressured them to be quiet?

[Dowding]

So your response to the news that there is going to be an investigation is the same tired old line about everyone believing 'Bush is Hitler'?

[GRUNHERZ]

But surely Bush the dictator would never allow it, what went wrong?

[Nash]

WOOT!

"The inquiries, launched by both Republican and Democratic politicians, will include public hearings that will be televised live."

"This is the first serious domestic pressure on the Bush administration to give a detailed explanation of its pre-war claims about weapons of mass destruction."

"Senator John Warner, the Republican chairman of the armed services panel, said he had ordered the inquiry because of the depth and seriousness of the issue."

""The situation is becoming one where the credibility of the administration and Congress is being challenged," he said."

"It is likely that senior officials such as Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell will be summoned before Congress."

[Toad]

Weazel's remarks, not Dowdings.

Note it is a REPUBLICAN that opened the hearing.

I have no problem with investigating it.

However, for all the BBS pundits, I'll still say 30 days is premature.

[Sixpence]

10bears, your ability to land the big one is uncanny(spell?)

[Yeager]

Dont let a few diehard Clinton retreads get yer dander up.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Yeager
Dont let a few diehard Clinton retreads get yer dander up.

Too late, in this land of flounder fisherman, he has landed a marlin.

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by Toad
Note it is a REPUBLICAN that opened the hearing.

I have no problem with investigating it.

However, for all the BBS pundits, I'll still say 30 days is premature.

I absolutely agree with Toad on this.  30 days is too short.  Hans Blix's weapons inspectors were given longer...about three months.  Given the unfettered nature of the current search and the army of folks engaged in the hunt, it is reasonable to give the Administration the same amount of time to prove it's pre-war allegations before those of us who opposed the war should cry foul.

I do think it is appropriate to investigate what the Administration was using as "solid sources" in order to justify the war as it seems there is some backpedaling going on to rationalize why WMDs were not used as expected and have not been found after a mere 30 days of searching. It gives the appearance that the sources were not all that solid after all...I'm sure the reliability of those sources was used to convince fence-sitters in Congress to vote for the war resolution.  I'm very pleasantly surprised that the 'Pubs opened the investigation...maybe the Bush hegemony had been broken (I got to use that word again Toad ).  It should be interesting to hear Graham's questions since he is a presidential candidate.

[Nash]

I just snipped and included the part talking about the Republican's opening of the investigation (I thought it would be more legit for you Repubs); there's actually two investigations opened by both the Repubs and the Dems.

I too am please the Republicans are taking the initiative on this.

[weazel]

CIA Investigates Accuracy Of Administration's Accusations That Led To War

Whoopsie...looks like the CIA is making sure they aren't the fall guys for the Bush junta.

Ya gotta love Helen thomas.....

[-dead-]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
What does that have to do with your flawed initial argument?

If you're looking for a flawed argument try "Iraqi WMDs pose a real and immediate threat to the US, and we have concrete proof that they have them, so we have to invade" - if it was such a great threat why didn't Hussein use them when the US & the UK invaded? What was he afraid of? His homeland being invaded? And if the proof was so concrete why are the WMDs nowhere to be found?

I digress - in answer to your question: as I see it, no one is going to use WMD to defend somewhere they only just invaded mostly for economic reasons. However they are likely to use WMDs in defence of their homeland.
For example: Would the US protect Iraq from an UN "liberation" with nukes? Highly improbable. Would the US use WMD to protect the US homeland? Yes - indeed it can be argued that the promise of nukes being used is the cornerstone of any credible "nuclear deterrent".
The other point is that the liberation of Kuwait was a UN gig, and most countries supported the Iraqis being kicked out of Kuwait, so if the Iraqis get beaten (a foregone conclusion against a UN coalition that includes a contigent of the world's richest and second largest army), the Iraqi leadership can live with it - they're still in power. Hussein's not really in much of a corner - no need for the WMDs. And he doesn't want to anger anyone past the pre invasion borders. Indeed there's some evidence Hussein only invaded Kuwait after he thought the US wasn't fussed enough to intervene (see the Glaspie-Hussein meeting - although I'm unsure as to the veracity of the transcripts on the 'net).
Net result is that the risk of WMDs being used is very low.

The 2003 Invasion of Iraq on the other hand is not backed by the UN or world opinion, is unprovoked and has as its stated goal the removal and incarceration of the leadership of Iraq. It's corner time for Hussein - and on the opposite side, the US & UK are out on a limb - if WMDs are used, it would be much more palatable to many countries. Besides which, given the goal of the invasion, Hussein has very little to lose if he does use WMDs: he will definitely lose if he does not use them, but he might possibly outlast the US public's support for the invasion if he does use them in defence of his own turf. WMDs will likely also get rid of a lot of enemy troops and gum up the logisitics side with casualties. He has used exactly these tactics against the numerically superior Iranian army. IMO the risk of WMDs use in an invasion is extremely high - from a US presidential point of view, if you're looking to run again, unacceptably high. An unprovoked invasion that lacks UN or world support and with very high casualties is not going to get you reelected - it's definitely a second term action.
Unless, of course, you know for a fact that Iraq really doesn't have any WMDs. Then it's a cakewalk - it's a vote-winner because nothing soothes an electorate better than a quick easy victory with all the attendent missile videos, flag-waving, back-slapping and other patriotic nonsense to keep the plebs happy and distract them from the rough economy at home. It also frees up a lot of oil from the hands of an abrasive leadership, to do with as you will - although I'm sure that wouldn't interest the current US leadership who are of course not connected with the oil industry. It opens up a new potential military base near Iran, Syria, Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and lessens dependence on the Saudis. It also gets the pressure off Israel (another perceived vote winner and perhaps a bargaining chip for the peace talks). Last, but not least, it boosts the ailing economy with all the munitions expended and the free advertising of US firepower superiority can't exactly hurt the world's largest arms exporter - especially in the world's largest arms market, the Middle East. In fact wars and defence spending seem to be the preferred methods for Republican governments to massively increase public spending to boost the economy whilst continuing to pay lip service to reducing government expenditure - no one ever seems to question a defence budget increase.
To summarise - same players, yes - but entirely different conflicts, with different risk levels.

[blue1]

Well, Dead has it pretty much covered. What fascinates me about this whole thread is the lack of input from the likes of Lazs and Nuke. Only poor old Grunherz and a few others are here down to  their last few rounds and illusions to protect them.

I now believe that we were conned about WMD's. I do think Bush and Blair et al 'hoped and prayed' there were really WMD's in Iraq even though their evidence is flawed.

We can see now that other politicans and even the CIA moving to protect themselves from the backlash this can bring to the perpretrators. Like it or not without WMD's this war was an illegal act of aggression against a sovereign country. Whether or not it was a good thing. Even that is looking shaky. Increasing Iraqi unrest, the fact of troops not coming home and having to be reinforced. How many have died now since the war ended. I seem to remember 29?
Reports of Saddam hiding in Libya waiting to make a triumphant return, however unlikely that is.


It's in danger of becoming an exceedingly bad mess. I'm annoyed because I bought the lie and derided anti war protestors when it now looks as if they were actually right all along.

Now that really p****S me off.

[blue1]

Well, Dead has it pretty much covered. What fascinates me about this whole thread is the lack of input from the likes of Lazs and Nuke. Only poor old Grunherz and a few others are here down to  their last few rounds and illusions to protect them.

I now believe that we were conned about WMD's. I do think Bush and Blair et al 'hoped and prayed' there were really WMD's in Iraq even though their evidence is flawed.

We can see now that other politicans and even the CIA moving to protect themselves from the backlash this can bring to the perpretrators. Like it or not without WMD's this war was an illegal act of aggression against a sovereign country. Whether or not it was a good thing. Even that is looking shaky. Increasing Iraqi unrest, the fact of troops not coming home and having to be reinforced. How many have died now since the war ended. I seem to remember 29?
Reports of Saddam hiding in Libya waiting to make a triumphant return, however unlikely that is.


It's in danger of becoming an exceedingly bad mess. I'm annoyed because I bought the lie and derided anti war protestors when it now looks as if they were actually right all along.

Now that really p****S me off.

[blue1]

Well, Dead has it pretty much covered. What fascinates me about this whole thread is the lack of input from the likes of Lazs and Nuke. Only poor old Grunherz and a few others are here down to  their last few rounds and illusions to protect them.

I now believe that we were conned about WMD's. I do think Bush and Blair et al 'hoped and prayed' there were really WMD's in Iraq even though their evidence is flawed.

We can see now that other politicans and even the CIA moving to protect themselves from the backlash this can bring to the perpretrators. Like it or not without WMD's this war was an illegal act of aggression against a sovereign country. Whether or not it was a good thing. Even that is looking shaky. Increasing Iraqi unrest, the fact of troops not coming home and having to be reinforced. How many have died now since the war ended. I seem to remember 29?
Reports of Saddam hiding in Libya waiting to make a triumphant return, however unlikely that is.


It's in danger of becoming an exceedingly bad mess. I'm annoyed because I bought the lie and derided anti war protestors when it now looks as if they were actually right all along.

Now that really p****S me off.