sanctions

[smellthecoffee]

it is not acceptable to wipe our hands of this debarcle. We are one of the core member nations and continued the sanctions in spite of the knowledge that they had no effect. Saddam had no regard for his people and basic regard is required for sanctions of this kind to be effective. I would, at any stage, have been supportive of a UN decision to intervene and change the regime. The problem was, and remains, THIS WAS NOT THE PREMISE FOR ATTACK!!!. it is not going to wash if we retrospectively claim that the world is better off. Had the request before the UN been to change regimes upon humanitarian grounds then I think many nations would have taken a different position.
BTW. I notice nobody has wanted to address the content of the post with regard to Don's pal being propped up. Why is that? let's hear some defense of our support for saddam whilst he was killing Iranians and kurds!

 

[CrazyLiberal]

OMG ANOTHER LIBERAL I FELT SO ALONE!!
As to the post, GJ!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by smellthecoffee
The problem was, and remains, THIS WAS NOT THE PREMISE FOR ATTACK!!!.

What specifically was the premise for invading Iraq then?

 

[CrazyLiberal]

Check your private messages Sir Evil. The uncanny Bush/Monkey resemblance Avatar is good but the new one I want is better

 

[smellthecoffee]

GWB stated that Iraq posed an imminent threat to America and her allies due to it's substantial stocks of WMD and accordingly must be disarmed in spite of the now obvious non- existance of such weapons or the capacity to strike. This was the premise for the attack on Iraq along with a deliberate inference that Iraq was involved in 911. If not then please tell me where and when the US stated regime change as the purpose for invasion.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by smellthecoffee
GWB stated that Iraq posed an imminent threat to America and her allies

WRONG!

Care to provide sources for this nonexistent statement?

This is what happens when you read moveon.org too much.

 

[smellthecoffee]

still evading the question of support for Saddam! and let's chat about that 'Infamous" smiling handshake photo of Rumsfeld and Saddam. Smacks of self intrest don't you think? Or is he only a butcher when he's not on our side? I've never known conservatives to stay so quiet rev up those big mouths and hand me the excuses!

 

[smellthecoffee]

I ask again... show me where and when regime change was given as the specific reason for the invasion.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by smellthecoffee
still evading

I'm waiting for your sources...

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by smellthecoffee
I ask again... show me where and when regime change was given as the specific reason for the invasion.

There was never any one reason given. It was over 12 years of lists ranging from failure to cooperate with investigators, regime change, failure to stop oppressing his people, failure to return bodies and items to Kuwait, shooting at our planes...

 

[smellthecoffee]

read the previos statements sir evil. I already stated thet I would support at any stage the removal from power of Saddam. PAY ATTENTION>

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by smellthecoffee
read the previos statements sir evil. I already stated thet I would support at any stage the removal from power of Saddam. PAY ATTENTION>

How about YOU pay attention. How many times must I ask you to provide sources for your baseless claims?

 

[smellthecoffee]

I'm sure that UN hansard will provide the exact text for statements by US ambassador. However you surely are not trying to assert that GWB did not say those "17 words" and strongly state Iraq's WMD as a clear and present danger. Have you been awake for the last year Jim?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by smellthecoffee
I'm sure that UN hansard will provide the exact text for statements by US ambassador. However you surely are not trying to assert that GWB did not say those "17 words" and strongly state Iraq's WMD as a clear and present danger. Have you been awake for the last year Jim?

Why are you now changing the words? This is what you clearly said the first time:

GWB stated that Iraq posed an imminent threat to America and her allies

This wasn't a question, it was a direct statement. Without changing the words, can you backup your claim?

Did you get a nice nap under that rock?

 

[smellthecoffee]

Jim I will seek out relevant quotes. And admittedly I was paraphrasing and apologise for giving the imression that it was a quote. My direct quotes are always referenced (as per prior postings) but I am happy to find relevant source info. Plus, it will give you time to address the issues you have been ducking throughout this discussion. Still no opinion on support and arming of Saddam eh? Seems to me only liberal thinkers are expected to substantiate claims here! Don't do a Hannity on us Jim back up some of those inflamatory statements you cons spout.

 

[smellthecoffee]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
Well Iraq is no longer a clear and present danger thank's to GW, but we may never know if Iraq was! Did you want to sit around another decade to find out???

never was evil. and we knew it before we went there. But the important thing is Cheney's pals are making a stack of cash. Hell....why else would you bother going to war? You learn a little about these things when you bomb around 50 countries in 50 years.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by smellthecoffee
Jim I will seek out relevant quotes.

How about if we just stick on the one you have made so far. Once you can do that we can move to the next quote.

 

[LoneVoice]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Why are you now changing the words? This is what you clearly said the first time:

GWB stated that Iraq posed an imminent threat to America and her allies

This wasn't a question, it was a direct statement. Without changing the words, can you backup your claim?

Did you get a nice nap under that rock?

You wanted references of the Bush regime's claims that GWB posed an imminent threat to America. This was posted in another thread.

Somehow in that thread you right wingers managed to misread, mis-interpret, and ignore the quotes there. Maybe you'll comprehend it this time.

Originally posted by boss
"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
• President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
• President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
• President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
• President Bush, 10/16/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
• President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02

Dean also very well articulated the point on Meet the Press this Sunday (show interviewed Condoleeza Rice and Dean).


So now... Let's see you and your fellow right wingers stick to the merits of the discussion that Bush overemphasized the threat from Iraq. Kay, who was the main intelligence advisor to Bush on this matter, also stated that the Bush regime overstated the threat from Saddam in relation to war.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by LoneVoice
You wanted references of the Bush regime's claims that GWB posed an imminent threat to America. This was posted in another thread.

I have yet to see on quote attributed to George Bush showing he ever stated Iraq was an "imminent threat". It was not posted in another thread and YOU CANNOT provide a quote saying as much.

So now... Let's see you and your fellow right wingers stick to the merits of the discussion that Bush overemphasized the threat from Iraq. Kay, who was the main intelligence advisor to Bush on this matter, also stated that the Bush regime overstated the threat from Saddam in relation to war.

Bullshit.

I suggest you read Kay's statements before looking any more foolish.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by LoneVoice
So now... Let's see you and your fellow right wingers stick to the merits of the discussion that Bush overemphasized the threat from Iraq. Kay, who was the main intelligence advisor to Bush on this matter, also stated that the Bush regime overstated the threat from Saddam in relation to war.

Key Excerpts from David Kay's Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee:


Acting in Iraq was justified to protect the United States and the world

Senator McCain: "[Y]ou agree with the fundamental principle here that what we did was justified and enhance the security of the United States and the world by removing Saddam Hussein from power?"

David Kay: "Absolutely."

"It would be hard to come to a conclusion other than Iraq was a gathering, serious threat"

Senator Kennedy: "Many of us feel that the evidence so far leads only to one conclusion: that what has happened was more than a failure of intelligence, it was the result of manipulation of the intelligence to justify a decision to go to war..........."

David Kay: ".......All I can say is if you read the total body of intelligence in the last 12 to 15 years that flowed on Iraq, I quite frankly think it would be hard to come to a conclusion other than Iraq was a gathering, serious threat to the world with regard to WMD."

"Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of Resolution 1441"

"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."

"Iraq was in clear and material violation of 1441. They maintained programs and activities, and they certainly had the intentions at a point to resume their program. So there was a lot they wanted to hide because it showed what they were doing that was illegal. I hope we find even more evidence of that."

"The world is far safer with the disappearance and removal of Saddam Hussein"

"I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and the removal of Saddam Hussein. I have said I actually think this may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought. I think when we have the complete record you're going to discover that after 1998 it became a regime that was totally corrupt. Individuals were out for their own protection. And in a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made that a far more dangerous country than even we anticipated with what may turn out not to be a fully accurate estimate."

Analysts were not pressured

"And let me take one of the explanations most commonly given: Analysts were pressured to reach conclusions that would fit the political agenda of one or another administration. I deeply think that is a wrong explanation. And never -- not in a single case -- was the explanation, 'I was pressured to do this.' The explanation was, very often, 'The limited data we had led one to reasonably conclude this. I now see that there's another explanation for it' ...... And each case was different, but the conversations were sufficiently in depth and our relationship was sufficiently frank that I'm convinced that, at least to the analysts I dealt with, I did not come across a single one that felt it had been, in the military term, 'inappropriate command influence' that led them to take that position."

"Absolutely no doubt" Saddam harbored ambitions to develop and use WMD

Senator McCain: "Saddam Hussein developed and used weapons of mass destruction; true?"

David Kay: "Absolutely."

Senator McCain: "He used them against the Iranians and the Kurds; just yes or no."

David Kay: "Oh, yes."

Senator McCain: "OK. And U.N. inspectors found enormous quantities of banned chemical and biological weapons in Iraq in the '90s."

David Kay: "Yes, sir."

Senator McCain: "We know that Saddam Hussein had once a very active nuclear program."

David Kay: "Yes."

Senator McCain: "And he realized and had ambitions to develop and use weapons of mass destruction."

David Kay: "Clearly."

Senator McCain: "So the point is, if he were in power today, there is no doubt that he would harbor ambitions for the development and use of weapons of mass destruction. Is there any doubt in your mind?"

David Kay: "There's absolutely no doubt. And I think I've said that, Senator."

"We have learned things that no U.N. inspector would have ever learned given the terror regime of Saddam"

Senator Clinton: "I think that rightly does raise questions that we should be examining about whether or not the U.N. inspection process pursuant to 1441 might not also have worked without the loss of life that we have confronted both among our own young men and women, as well as Iraqis."

David Kay: "Well, Senator Clinton, let me just add to that. We have had a number of Iraqis who have come forward and said, 'We did not tell the U.N. about what we were hiding, nor would we have told the U.N. because we would run the risk of our own' -- I think we have learned things that no U.N. inspector would have ever learned given the terror regime of Saddam and the tremendous personal consequences that scientists had to run by speaking the truth." That's not to say, and it's not incompatible with the fact that inspections accomplish a great deal in holding a program down. And that's where the surprise is. In holding the program down, in keeping it from break out, I think the record is better than we would have anticipated. I don't think the record is necessarily better than we thought with regard to getting the final truth, because of the power of the terrorist state that Saddam Hussein had."