Saddam to excile

[Sevendogs]

Why not to send Saddam to excile for exchange for information about WMD? Administration needs it so much! May be he would tell it all now? We know Saddam's character and his methods well. Who can believe that he would never use those horrible weapons to defend even himslef? He did not use them, because he did not have them.

 

[Annie]

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but most US citizens just aren't as fixated on the WMD as you seem to be. I think most of us realized he HAD used them and he WOULD if he had them and the opportunity to use them, whether through his own means or using surrogates.

As for the existence of the WMD's; now, 6 months ago, or in 1991, it seems like a good time to review some of what was said and some of what is now purported to have been said:
http://www.rightwingnews.com/john/wmd.php


Yesterday I was talking to a friend of mine about Saddam Hussein and she said in part,

FOH: ...I just don't agree with being lied to in order to take (Saddam) out.

John Hawkins: What lie do you think you were told?

FOH: That we were in imminent danger of being destroyed by weapons of mass destruction.

My friend isn't very political, but some left-winger apparently got to her and convinced her that Bush was lying about WMD. While her belief is erroneous, it's understandable that some people might buy into the idea that "Bush lied about WMD" because they're not political junkies who remember every detail of the build-up to the war. That's why it's so important for conservatives to remind people of what really happened even as the left tries to rewrite history.

To begin with, this argument that Bush kept emphasizing that we were in "imminent danger" can be quickly and easily disposed of. That's because the whole concept behind making preemptive strikes runs counter to the idea of waiting until a threat is "imminent". As Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union speech,

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)"

Secondly, while Bush certainly made it very clear that he believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, that was not the sole reason Bush gave for invading Iraq. To the contrary, Bush hit several themes consistently in the year before the invasion of Iraq including WMD, Saddam's violation of 17 United Nations resolutions (which did not deal with WMD alone), Hussein's mistreatment of his people, & his cooperation with terrorists. To prove that I'm not just blowing smoke, let me go back to Bush's widely covered Sept 12, 2002 speech to the United Nations General Assembly. In that speech which made front page news all around the world, Bush explained what Saddam needed to do to avoid war. If the anti-war critics are right and Bush predicated his whole case on Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction, it would be logical to think that Bush simply told Saddam to get rid of his WMD. But to the contrary, Bush said the following,

"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people."

Ok, so we've now shown that Bush wasn't claiming the threat was "imminent" and that Bush's case against Iraq wasn't built exclusively on showing that Saddam had WMD. Even if that's so, we haven't found the WMD yet. Doesn't that mean Bush "lied"?

No, it doesn't. What you have to understand is almost EVERYBODY in the know thought Saddam had WMD. For example, just listen to what "Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., ranking member of the House intelligence Committee" had to say about this subject,

"Some are suggesting, certainly, that (Saddam) destroyed the weapons after 1998 or maybe even sooner. It's just counterintuitive that he would have done that. His would have been the greatest intelligence hoax of all time, fooling every intelligence agency, three presidents, five secretaries of defense and the entire world into thinking he still had the weapons."

Furthermore, Harman wasn't the only Democrat who felt that way. There are many examples I could cite, but here's one from the current golden girl of the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, making virtually the same case to the American people that Bush did on weapons on mass destruction,

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

Since Bush's position on whether Saddam had WMD was indistinguishable from that of most of the VIPs in the Democratic Party, no intellectually honest person can claim that "Bush lied about WMD" unless he also believes that the majority of the US government on both sides of the aisle, along with intelligence agencies and leaders from many other nations, also lied about Hussein's WMD.

At worst, those who are knowledgable about the situation and who aren't blind partisans can say that Bush's allegation that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was in error. But to be truthful, we can't even definitively say that's the case yet. I tell you that because there are a variety of theories about what happened to the weapons of mass destruction. Some people believe that the WMD have been; shipped to Lebanon or Syria, destroyed at some point, hidden and not yet found, carried away in the looting, given to terrorists, not built for years by scientists afraid to tell Saddam the truth, or some combination thereof. At this point, it's difficult to rule any of those possibilities out. But as David Kay pointed out in his interim report, Saddam at the very least intended to procure WMD,

"Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Even those senior officials we have interviewed who claim no direct knowledge of any on-going prohibited activities readily acknowledge that Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or his sons about how long it would take to either restart CW production or make available chemical weapons."

So we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Hussein once had and used weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, at the time of the invasion, Saddam either had WMD or planned to acquire them. So all this quibbling over WMD is in a very important sense, irrelevant. Worst case scenario, it's like we stopped a serial killer before he could kill again as opposed to actually catching him with a body in the basement. In any case, sensible people who are concerned about what an anti-American tyrant like Saddam might have done with his WMD should be happy that the "Butcher of Baghdad" is now permanently out of business.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


© copyright 2001-2003 John Hawkins

 

[Palestinian Jew]

Please don't make excuses

1) There ARE NO FACTS to link Saddam with 9/11. Unless you want to say he was indirectly responsible, but then you can easily say that the U.S. was indirectly responsible. So when Bush said he was tied to terrorism, he isn't telling the truth, but I guess in your logic not telling the truth of the matter isn't lying.

2) WMDs were the reason why the majority of the people that were for the war, wanted to go to war. Otherwise a case could be made to go to war with almost any country in the world.

3) Saddam was in violation of UN accords, but I think that the UN should have to deal with violations, not the US.

4) If Bush wants to make sure that Rogue nations never aquire Nukes, why didn't he do anything about NK?

5) What FACTS does Bush state why Saddam would even want to attack the U.S.? Saddam has never attacked the U.S. and would never plan to, he is a coward and would never want to face the might of the US. The ass didn't even shoot himself in the end, hid in a rathole, and ended up betraying many of his friends with the suitcase, and now interigators are currently making him tell everything.

6) You are right, Bush never said Iraq was an imminent threat, Ari Fleisher did though. And Bush didn't lie, our intelligence was just wrong.

7) I think the WMDs were destroyed some years ago, but the scientists didn't have the balls to tell Saddam he didn't have power in the world, so the cycle kept on going.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
3) Saddam was in violation of UN accords, but I think that the UN should have to deal with violations, not the US.

When?

 

[Palestinian Jew]

When?

If Saddam ever got out of control. I agree with you that it is questionable when and if they would have acted, but the UN obviously had him under close inspection, otherwise this old debate about WMDs wouldn't exist.

 

[MtnBiker]

What is your definition of "out of control"?

 

[Palestinian Jew]

I do love playing word games. I mean when Saddam is an ACTUAL threat to the US, not a bunch of IFs, MAYBEs, COULD'VEs, and MIGHTs.

 

[lilcountriegal]

1) There ARE NO FACTS to link Saddam with 9/11. Unless you want to say he was indirectly responsible, but then you can easily say that the U.S. was indirectly responsible. So when Bush said he was tied to terrorism, he isn't telling the truth, but I guess in your logic not telling the truth of the matter isn't lying.

Saddam isnt a terrorist? Tell that to the thousands of people he has killed.

2) WMDs were the reason why the majority of the people that were for the war, wanted to go to war. Otherwise a case could be made to go to war with almost any country in the world.

That is an opinion. WMDs were NOT the reason behind the war... a regime change was. As far as a case being made to go to war with almost any country: "almost any country in the world" isnt gassing their own people.

3) Saddam was in violation of UN accords, but I think that the UN should have to deal with violations, not the US.

How long do you want to give them to do that? You're right... i dont think 12 years was quite long enough....

4) If Bush wants to make sure that Rogue nations never aquire Nukes, why didn't he do anything about NK?

One at a time, my friend. We'll deal with NK at some point, whether it be the U.N. or just the U.S., NK will be dealt with properly should they continue their dealings. I'm sure you can hardly wait, you and you're anti Bush buddies will have something else to bitch about.

5) What FACTS does Bush state why Saddam would even want to attack the U.S.? Saddam has never attacked the U.S. and would never plan to, he is a coward and would never want to face the might of the US. The ass didn't even shoot himself in the end, hid in a rathole, and ended up betraying many of his friends with the suitcase, and now interigators are currently making him tell everything.

He is not telling everything. He is not being cooperative. The only reason we have teh suitcase is because we took it when we took him... its not like he mailed it with a special stamp care of U.S.

6) You are right, Bush never said Iraq was an imminent threat, Ari Fleisher did though. And Bush didn't lie, our intelligence was just wrong.

You're right, Bush didnt lie. And the intelligence was enough to convince most of the world, Democrats included.

7) I think the WMDs were destroyed some years ago, but the scientists didn't have the balls to tell Saddam he didn't have power in the world, so the cycle kept on going.

Nice theory. We can add that to all the other special conspiracy theories we're collecting on the board. If the weapons were destroyed years ago as you suggest, why not turn over the proof that they were destroyed? Would have kept those evil Americans from attacking.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
I do love playing word games. I mean when Saddam is an ACTUAL threat to the US, not a bunch of IFs, MAYBEs, COULD'VEs, and MIGHTs.

O.k. Palestinian Jew, I'm not trying to play word games, only trying to understand. So help me, what UN resolutions that Sadam was in violation of were directed toward threatening the U.S. ?

 

[jimnyc]

1) There ARE NO FACTS to link Saddam with 9/11. Unless you want to say he was indirectly responsible, but then you can easily say that the U.S. was indirectly responsible. So when Bush said he was tied to terrorism, he isn't telling the truth, but I guess in your logic not telling the truth of the matter isn't lying.

Who said there is a definitive link between the 2? I can tell you 2 things that are definite - He'll no longer be committing crimes to humanity and he definitely won't reach the level where he is a threat.

2) WMDs were the reason why the majority of the people that were for the war, wanted to go to war. Otherwise a case could be made to go to war with almost any country in the world.

It doesn't matter what the people perceived as the reason for going to war, they apparently didn't take the time to read the resolutions. The reason for war was to remove Saddam and his regime. Mission has been accomplished thus far. Can you point out another country that had 1) Desire to obtain/use WMD 2) Been killing their citizens by the thousands 3) Had been ignoring UN resolutions for 12 years ?

3) Saddam was in violation of UN accords, but I think that the UN should have to deal with violations, not the US.

It's doubtful to me that resolutions would have ever been implemented in the first place without the US. What catastrophe was the UN waiting for before taking action?

4) If Bush wants to make sure that Rogue nations never aquire Nukes, why didn't he do anything about NK?

Refer back to #2. NK will be dealt with appropriately, Iraq was much more dangerous to their citizens, neighbors and the world as a whole.

5) What FACTS does Bush state why Saddam would even want to attack the U.S.? Saddam has never attacked the U.S. and would never plan to, he is a coward and would never want to face the might of the US. The ass didn't even shoot himself in the end, hid in a rathole, and ended up betraying many of his friends with the suitcase, and now interigators are currently making him tell everything.

If Saddam was such a coward and that afraid of the US, he would have been extremely cooperative from the very beginning. I can't think of one time he was ever cooperative. It was his threat to his people, neighbors & peace throughout the world that ensured he needed to be removed.

6) You are right, Bush never said Iraq was an imminent threat, Ari Fleisher did though. And Bush didn't lie, our intelligence was just wrong.

We don't know that the intelligence was all wrong. We do know that it obviously wasn't helpful. Either weapons were destroyed, removed or hidden before the invasion. When that took place we just don't know. I don't think he had nukes or huge stockpiles anymore, but I know he won't be acquiring/using them anytime soon.

7) I think the WMDs were destroyed some years ago, but the scientists didn't have the balls to tell Saddam he didn't have power in the world, so the cycle kept on going.

Yet another possibility, but that information didn't help us before the invasion, if it's even true. The threat that he had them and could use them on his people or neighbors still existed.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

Why is this board made up of conservatives?

Saddam isnt a terrorist? Tell that to the thousands of people he has killed.

You know thats not what I meant. Killing his people is one thing, but saying he killed 3,000 americans is quite another.

That is an opinion. WMDs were NOT the reason behind the war... a regime change was. As far as a case being made to go to war with almost any country: "almost any country in the world" isnt gassing their own people.

I didn't say WMDs are THE reason for the war, I said that we wouldn't be in Iraq if the case were made. They may not be gassing their own people, but they are still slaughtering thousands, what difference does it make if they use guns and poverty rather than gas?

How long do you want to give them to do that? You're right... i dont think 12 years was quite long enough....

So you believe Iraq wasn't effectively contained?

One at a time, my friend. We'll deal with NK at some point, whether it be the U.N. or just the U.S., NK will be dealt with properly should they continue their dealings. I'm sure you can hardly wait, you and you're anti Bush buddies will have something else to bitch about.

We'll deal with them at some point? That point has long since passed, thanks to all this Iraq BS. I'm not anti-Bush, only when it comes to his thoughts on Iraq, the environment, and his reelection. I watched Bush build his argument for war in Iraq at the same time reports were coming out about NK breaking seals, and I knew that nothing would be done.

You're right, Bush didnt lie. And the intelligence was enough to convince most of the world, Democrats included.

Acutally, most of the world is and was against the war, but you are obviously refering to the world leaders. Guess what happens next time their elections roll around? They will all elect some major anti-Bush people, so if you think I'm anti-Bush, just hold on.
The reason I think the Democrats were for the war is pure politics, they wanted to get reelected. The vote to go to war was at the same time re-elections were taking place, and since being against the war would lose votes, they chose to be for it.

Nice theory. We can add that to all the other special conspiracy theories we're collecting on the board. If the weapons were destroyed years ago as you suggest, why not turn over the proof that they were destroyed? Would have kept those evil Americans from attacking.

Thank you. Its just as plausible as any other theory.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

Refer back to #2. NK will be dealt with appropriately, Iraq was much more dangerous to their citizens, neighbors and the world as a whole.

I can't quite see how Iraq was more dangerous. We know that North Koreans are all dirt poor, their media is censored, they have nukes and a great hate for the rest of the world, so I think any clear thinking person would say Nk is a greater threat.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
I can't quite see how Iraq was more dangerous. We know that North Koreans are all dirt poor, their media is censored, they have nukes and a great hate for the rest of the world, so I think any clear thinking person would say Nk is a greater threat.

Has NK ever used WMD on their own people or neighbors within the last 20 years?

Has NK been denying inspections for 12 years? Have they been given resolutions to abide by and ignored them for 12 years?

Has NK been killing it's own citizens by the thousands and burying them in mass graves?

Unless you can answer Yes to all of the above, and give proof, Iraq was clearly more dangerous at the time. There's no doubt that NK needs to be dealt with, and they will be, but the comparison really isn't much of a comparison.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

NOT MUCH OF A COMPARISON!!!!!!

What weapons did Iraq have? NK has fucking nukes!!!

Yes, NK is killing its own people, have you never watched any documentry of NK?

 

[MtnBiker]

I certainly do not know all of the infromation on North Korea, but they are being dealt with. Dimplomatic talks have been ongoing with neighboring countries. You are right Palestinian Jew, Korea is dirt poor, especially as compared to Iraqs natural resources. That wealth and natural resource gave Saddam a huge advantage in any negotiation, an advantage North Korea does not have, thus making dimplomatic talks more effective.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
NOT MUCH OF A COMPARISON!!!!!!

What weapons did Iraq have? NK has fucking nukes!!!

Yes, NK is killing its own people, have you never watched any documentry of NK?

First off, lose the attitude or just simply stop posting. I don't think we need your attitude just because you disagree with our opinions.

Does Russia have nukes? Did they ever have them before this year? Why didn't we attack them? Just possessing WMD doesn't make the entire case, it's the people that control their use that is more worrisome. NK can be dealt with, you can't deal with people like Saddam and his regime.

And in what magnitude is NK killing it's own people in the last 10 years? Can you provide links for me to look at these atrocities?

 

[Annie]

First off, lose the attitude or just simply stop posting. I don't think we need your attitude just because you disagree with our opinions.

One of the few times that I agree with threat to censor. Palestinian Jew is not conversing, but trying to bully, reason I won't answer him.

North Korea is most definately dangerous, as are Syria and Iran.
Each needs to be dealt with, hopefully without force. Iraq had over a decade of warnings, not to mention actually bombings under Clinton. They were given time to deal with both the UN and US led coalition, their leadership chose not to respond positively.

Perhaps Palestinian is just upset about the drying up of Iraqi money to suicide bombers?

 

[Palestinian Jew]

Sorry, but it makes me really angry when blind politics enter the fray.

here is a link about malnutrition and overpophttp://www.popcouncil.org/mediacenter/newsreleases/pdr27_2goodkind.html

Here's their torture prisons
http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,757783,00.html

Anotherhttp://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP10.HTM

Testimony http://www.chosunjournal.com/cnkrlemonde.html

I can provide more if you like

 

[Palestinian Jew]

One of the few times that I agree with threat to censor. Palestinian Jew is not conversing, but trying to bully, reason I won't answer him.

Thats too bad, I was really looking forward to your opinion b/c I'm sure its not exactly what jimnyc and lilcountry would say.

 

[Annie]

Are we supposed to be shocked that the world is not a perfect place?