I watched the President's speech tonight

B

barry2952

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2004
Messages
1,774
Reaction score
0
I watched the President's speech tonight with what I believe to be an open mind. You may chuckle, but I really tried. I think he really tried to address me directly.

I put myself in a frame of mind where everything he said was believable. I believed that he thought that Iraq was an imminent threat. Powell backed him up today by saying that the truth was kept from the President by our own intelligence agencies.

If the reason we went to Iraq wa based on faulty and unreliable data presented as reliable by our own agencies; where have the heads rolled? Who has been held accountable for the major FUBARs in intelligence gathering? Isn't the fabrication of evidence criminal? Who had been brought to justice?

I am now convinced that leaving early would be a mistake. I just don't believe I can forget that we went there under false pretenses. I have trouble with the concept of let's forget everything that happened in the past because we have a mission to complete.
 
barry2952 said:
I watched the President's speech tonight with what I believe to be an open mind. You may chuckle, but I really tried. I think he really tried to address me directly.

I put myself in a frame of mind where everything he said was believable. I believed that he thought that Iraq was an imminent threat. Powell backed him up today by saying that the truth was kept from the President by our own intelligence agencies.

If the reason we went to Iraq wa based on faulty and unreliable data presented as reliable by our own agencies; where have the heads rolled? Who has been held accountable for the major FUBARs in intelligence gathering? Isn't the fabrication of evidence criminal? Who had been brought to justice?

I am now convinced that leaving early would be a mistake. I just don't believe I can forget that we went there under false pretenses. I have trouble with the concept of let's forget everything that happened in the past because we have a mission to complete.
Click to expand...

You have no clue of what the issues were, and are. Get yourself a tutor, because I am not going to waste the time on you.
 
Barry, what about the fact that EVERYONE IN THE WORLD said he had WMD's do you not understand? To quote someone with more intelligence than your average dem, "Geez, friggin idiot!!!" Napolean Dynomite
 
Actually, barry, the Patriot Act was the first big step in eliminating the mistakes that led to the faulty intel. Unfortunately, your Dem leaders just killed it. So if you want to point the finger and hold people accountable, start there. I suspect that the head-rolling will be at the ballot box.

If you really listened to the speech, you know that Bush said that the reason we went into Iraq was Saddam's non-compliance with UN resolutions. The reason we haven't found WMDs is because of faulty intel, but going in there was still the right thing to do. When it comes to our nation's security, better safe than sorry is always the best policy. You wouldn't want to risk another 9/11, would you?
 
David (fossten) summed it up quite well. I also posted in another thread a great summary with a link that explains the whole ordeal.

One thing that doesn't get mentioned alot is the tension between the administration and intelligence; ie, the CIA. Lots of liberals floating around there that like to do things to hurt the admistration. They don't like their power being messed with.

Please explain why the Democrats and the Clinton administration were beating the drum during their administration. If you can explain the Clinton administration's comments and lack of action based on the intel they were talking about, then I'll be happy to explain Bush's actions.

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

But the consensus on which Bush relied was not born in his own administration. In fact, it was first fully formed in the Clinton administration. Here is Clinton himself, speaking in 1998:

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction program.

Here is his Secretary of State Madeline Albright, also speaking in 1998:

Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.

Here is Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Adviser, who chimed in at the same time with this flat-out assertion about Saddam:

He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.

Finally, Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, was so sure Saddam had stockpiles of WMD that he remained “absolutely convinced” of it even after our failure to find them in the wake of the invasion in March 2003.

Nor did leading Democrats in Congress entertain any doubts on this score. A few months after Clinton and his people made the statements I have just quoted, a group of Democratic Senators, including such liberals as Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry, urged the President

to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons-of-mass-destruction programs.

Nancy Pelosi, the future leader of the Democrats in the House, and then a member of the House Intelligence Committee, added her voice to the chorus:

Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons-of-mass-destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

This Democratic drumbeat continued and even intensified when Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001, and it featured many who would later pretend to have been deceived by the Bush White House. In a letter to the new President, a number of Senators led by Bob Graham declared:

There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical, and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf war status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.

Senator Carl Levin also reaffirmed for Bush’s benefit what he had told Clinton some years earlier:

Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed, speaking in October 2002:

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.

Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, agreed as well:

There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. . . . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.

Even more striking were the sentiments of Bush’s opponents in his two campaigns for the presidency. Thus Al Gore in September 2002:

We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.

And here is Gore again, in that same year:

Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.

Now to John Kerry, also speaking in 2002:

I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force—if necessary—to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.

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

Bottom line is Bush had the balls to do what Clinton couldn't/wouldn't. Maybe if 9/11 had happened on Clinton's watch he would have acted but I doubt it.
 
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-7_24_04_KZ2.html#media

A couple of great comments from this guy I couldn't pass up. Contrast it with the Iraq war.

I’ve been looking back at World War II recently and remembering, for instance, the Battle of the Bulge. In the Battle of the Bulge, American soldiers were sent to fight in waist-deep snow with no winter clothing, and I’m thinking to myself, “today, that would be reason to hang somebody. What commission is going to attack them for that?”

Humvees in Iraq??? Thousands dead.

Look at Iwo Jima. I believe 7,000 men were killed at Iwo Jima. It's a four-mile by two-mile island in the middle of nowhere with no resources. I wonder, would we, in our contemporary worldview be able to look at that and say, "that’s a glorious triumph for the US Marine Corps," or would we say, "somebody’s got to be court-martialed over that screw-up?"

Phil, where's the oil? A 4 x 2 mile piece of sand??? 7000 dead.
 
MonsterMark said:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-7_24_04_KZ2.html#media

A couple of great comments from this guy I couldn't pass up. Contrast it with the Iraq war.

I’ve been looking back at World War II recently and remembering, for instance, the Battle of the Bulge. In the Battle of the Bulge, American soldiers were sent to fight in waist-deep snow with no winter clothing, and I’m thinking to myself, “today, that would be reason to hang somebody. What commission is going to attack them for that?”

Humvees in Iraq??? Thousands dead.

Look at Iwo Jima. I believe 7,000 men were killed at Iwo Jima. It's a four-mile by two-mile island in the middle of nowhere with no resources. I wonder, would we, in our contemporary worldview be able to look at that and say, "that’s a glorious triumph for the US Marine Corps," or would we say, "somebody’s got to be court-martialed over that screw-up?"

Phil, where's the oil? A 4 x 2 mile piece of sand??? 7000 dead.
Click to expand...

The left won't admit that they've got no stomach for war or casualties. What a bunch of pansies. (not you barry)

They don't remember how much freedom has cost this country. Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it.
 
Bush had a great news conference this morning. Spoke for 15 minutes and then beat the press down for the next 45.

I like when he invoked executive privilege when it came to multiple part questions. Pretty funny moment.
 
MonsterMark said:
Bush had a great news conference this morning. Spoke for 15 minutes and then beat the press down for the next 45.

I like when he invoked executive privilege when it came to multiple part questions. Pretty funny moment.
Click to expand...

I missed it since I had to be at wk at 7. You know where I can see a transcript? Or hear a clip?
 
barry2952 said:
If the reason we went to Iraq wa based on faulty and unreliable data presented as reliable by our own agencies; where have the heads rolled? Who has been held accountable for the major FUBARs in intelligence gathering? Isn't the fabrication of evidence criminal? Who had been brought to justice?
Click to expand...

These are valid questions, and are part of the reason President Bush appointed Porter Goss as head of the CIA -- so he can go in there and clean house. You can see some of the backlash already because of the large number of CIA "leaks" about changes in policy. Most of the time, these "leaks" are from disgruntled employees or former employees who are pissed off that their turf is being disturbed by the President or his appointees.

I agree with Barry that if there was fabrication of intelligence, then those people involved should be held to account. At the moment, however, I think the jury is still out on which people are responsible.

The question in my mind has always been: How could we, and the British, and the Israelis, and the UN, and the French, and the Russians, and Clinton Administration, and the Bush 41 Administration, all have gotten the intelligence so wrong about Saddam's WMD? It is inconceivable to me that all these agencies could be simultaneously wrong. My conclusion, at this point, is that all these agences were not wrong, and that Saddam moved the stuff to some other place, like Syria.
 
Isn't it just possible that everyone just misinterpreted the information? We're talking about the US and foreign governments here. Not known for being fully functional.

If our aerial surveilence is so good, why didn't we see the caravans of trucks taking the stuff to Syria? I don't believe the stuff was ever there. The stuff their uncovering now is small arms and small rockets. No germs, no nukes.
 
ToddG said:
The question in my mind has always been: How could we, and the British, and the Israelis, and the UN, and the French, and the Russians, and Clinton Administration, and the Bush 41 Administration, all have gotten the intelligence so wrong about Saddam's WMD? It is inconceivable to me that all these agencies could be simultaneously wrong. My conclusion, at this point, is that all these agences were not wrong, and that Saddam moved the stuff to some other place, like Syria.
Click to expand...

That's what I think too. And here's a little something that may back up that theory.

Report: Syria agrees to hide Iran nukes

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Tuesday, December 20, 2005

LONDON — Syria has signed a pledge to store Iranian nuclear weapons and missiles.

The London-based Jane's Defence Weekly reported that Iran and Syria signed a strategic accord meant to protect either country from international pressure regarding their weapons programs. The magazine, citing diplomatic sources, said Syria agreed to store Iranian materials and weapons should Teheran come under United Nations sanctions.

Iran also pledged to grant haven to any Syrian intelligence officer indicted by the UN or Lebanon. Five Syrian officers have been questioned by the UN regarding the Hariri assassination, Middle East Newsline reported.

"The sensitive chapter in the accord includes Syria's commitment to allow Iran to safely store weapons, sensitive equipment or even hazardous materials on Syrian soil should Iran need such help in a time of crisis," Jane's said.

Flashback: UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after
The accord also obligated Syria to continue to supply the Iranian-sponsored Hizbullah with weapons, ammunition and communications. Iran has been the leading weapons supplier to Hizbullah, with about 15,000 missiles and rockets along the Israeli-Lebanese border.

The accord, negotiations of which began in 2004, was signed on Nov. 14 and meant to prepare for economic sanctions imposed on either Iran or Syria. Under the accord, Jane's said, Iran would relay financial aid to Syria in an effort to ease Western sanctions in wake of the UN determination that Damascus was responsible for the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. [Follow the money]

Iran also pledged to supply a range of military aid to Syria. Jane's cited technology for weapons of mass destruction as well as conventional arms, ammunition and training of Syrian military.

Teheran would seek to upgrade Syrian ballistic missiles and chemical weapons systems. Under the accord, Iran would also be prepared to operate "advanced weapon systems in Syria during a military confrontation." Jane's said.

"The new strategic accord is based on the existing military MoUs, with the addition of the sensitive chapter dealing with cooperation in times of international sanctions or military conflict," Jane's reported.

What makes you people think they haven't already been hiding Iraq's weapons since they've agreed to hide Iran's?
 
barry2952 said:
Isn't it just possible that everyone just misinterpreted the information? We're talking about the US and foreign governments here. Not known for being fully functional.

If our aerial surveilence is so good, why didn't we see the caravans of trucks taking the stuff to Syria? I don't believe the stuff was ever there. The stuff their uncovering now is small arms and small rockets. No germs, no nukes.
Click to expand...

I hate that I have to keep beating a dead horse, but we DO know that the stuff was there, because Saddam used it, he stated his intentions to use it again, he repeatedly and arrogantly thumbed his nose at the UN over WMDs, and he kicked the inspectors out. There's more evidence that Saddam had WMDs than there is that Bush lied about going into Iraq, yet you keep ignoring that truth in your blind furious quest to discredit George W. Bush.
 
Like Saddam wouldn't have lied about his nuclear capabilities. That's laughable.
 
fossten said:
I hate that I have to keep beating a dead horse, but we DO know that the stuff was there, because Saddam used it, he stated his intentions to use it again, he repeatedly and arrogantly thumbed his nose at the UN over WMDs, and he kicked the inspectors out. There's more evidence that Saddam had WMDs than there is that Bush lied about going into Iraq, yet you keep ignoring that truth in your blind furious quest to discredit George W. Bush.
Click to expand...
Where are the WMD , they were never found. Do you know where they are?
 
barry2952 said:
Like Saddam wouldn't have lied about his nuclear capabilities. That's laughable.
Click to expand...
First of all, you are mis-stating the category. WMDs aren't restricted to nuclear weapons.

Second, you ignore the fact that we removed almost 2 tons of enriched uranium from Iraq back in '04.

But you make my point for me. If you assume he lied about his 'nuclear' capabilities, how could you trust him to deal honestly with the UN resolutions?

Or do you know Saddam personally and can vouch for him?
 
fossten said:
That's what I think too. And here's a little something that may back up that theory.

Report: Syria agrees to hide Iran nukes

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Tuesday, December 20, 2005

LONDON — Syria has signed a pledge to store Iranian nuclear weapons and missiles.

The London-based Jane's Defence Weekly reported that Iran and Syria signed a strategic accord meant to protect either country from international pressure regarding their weapons programs. The magazine, citing diplomatic sources, said Syria agreed to store Iranian materials and weapons should Teheran come under United Nations sanctions.

Iran also pledged to grant haven to any Syrian intelligence officer indicted by the UN or Lebanon. Five Syrian officers have been questioned by the UN regarding the Hariri assassination, Middle East Newsline reported.

"The sensitive chapter in the accord includes Syria's commitment to allow Iran to safely store weapons, sensitive equipment or even hazardous materials on Syrian soil should Iran need such help in a time of crisis," Jane's said.

Flashback: UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after
The accord also obligated Syria to continue to supply the Iranian-sponsored Hizbullah with weapons, ammunition and communications. Iran has been the leading weapons supplier to Hizbullah, with about 15,000 missiles and rockets along the Israeli-Lebanese border.

The accord, negotiations of which began in 2004, was signed on Nov. 14 and meant to prepare for economic sanctions imposed on either Iran or Syria. Under the accord, Jane's said, Iran would relay financial aid to Syria in an effort to ease Western sanctions in wake of the UN determination that Damascus was responsible for the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. [Follow the money]

Iran also pledged to supply a range of military aid to Syria. Jane's cited technology for weapons of mass destruction as well as conventional arms, ammunition and training of Syrian military.

Teheran would seek to upgrade Syrian ballistic missiles and chemical weapons systems. Under the accord, Iran would also be prepared to operate "advanced weapon systems in Syria during a military confrontation." Jane's said.

"The new strategic accord is based on the existing military MoUs, with the addition of the sensitive chapter dealing with cooperation in times of international sanctions or military conflict," Jane's reported.

What makes you people think they haven't already been hiding Iraq's weapons since they've agreed to hide Iran's?
Click to expand...

I too, have long believed Syria is where Saddam sent his WMD. The agreement with Iran indeed makes it even more likely, given that the terms set forth in the agreement, which would trigger the transfer, are exactly the same circumstances Iraq faced.
 
ToddG said:
I agree with Barry that if there was fabrication of intelligence, then those people involved should be held to account. At the moment, however, I think the jury is still out on which people are responsible.
Click to expand...

I believe that it has already been well established that there was no intentional fabrication, at least on Bush's part, and that it was error.

It makes no difference, as "finding" WMD was not the primary reason we went into Iraq.
 
barry2952 said:
Isn't it just possible that everyone just misinterpreted the information? We're talking about the US and foreign governments here. Not known for being fully functional.

If our aerial surveilence is so good, why didn't we see the caravans of trucks taking the stuff to Syria? I don't believe the stuff was ever there. The stuff their uncovering now is small arms and small rockets. No germs, no nukes.
Click to expand...

As to your first point, yes, it is possible. However, I don't think it is very likely. I would expect that at least ONE government would get it right, but it appears they were all wrong. That doesn't make sense -- a dozen independent sources were all wrong? When you add to that the facts that Saddam had used chemical weapons on the Kurds, that all the chemicals we know he had after Gulf War I could not be accounted for, and that a lot of uranium was removed in 2004, and that captured Iraqi scientists have attested to working on these weapons, I conclude that he had some types of weapons and was actively seeking to purchase or manufacture more. The question is where did they go?

On your second point, if I was trying to move weapons to a friendly neighboring state, I would not attract attention with a caravan of semi-trailers. I would use some innocuous small vans or trucks. Also, remember the border between Syria and Iraqi is largely very porous and unguarded, so it is fairly easy to get materials across.
 
Let's not forget that it's documented that Syria has given asylum to ten or so Iraqi WMD scientists/officials. If they'd hide their leaders, why wouldn't they hide their weapons?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 71 (members: 2, guests: 69)
Back
Top