So France was RIGHT...?

[BillyTK]

That's a pretty big exageration, and since I've been calling the anti-war loons on that sort of thing (like calling Bush history's worst dictator), I'm afraid I have to call you on it too. However, you're correct that they aren't paragons of democracy. And on the Iraq issue itself, it's quite noteable that France's parliament never had a single debate about the Iraq invasion. Iraq policy (or lack thereof) came solely from Chirac and his apointees, without any input from the legislature. Kind of ironic given the criticism of Bush policy as being driven by secretive republican think-tanks who operate without the input of the democratic process, n'est pas?

Ironically enough, this more or less parallels events in the UK. Policy straight from Blair and his appointees, and a parliamentary debate which only happened after Blair had committed to joining Bush in the invasion of Iraq. This is particularly disturbing in the light of subsequent revelations that Blair sees the role of cabinet is to follow his wishes, not to debate policy as per its intended function.

 

[BillyTK]

Why should they, when they don't even give a crap about it at home? *cough*nannystate*cough*neosocialism*cough*

The only significant difference between Iraq and France, as far as I can see, was the public beheadings.

EDITED TO ADD: Just to keep it clear, the beheadings were in Iraq.

And the lack of WMD parts carefully hidden in scientists' gardens?

 

[King of the Americas]

To Jocko:

It's not funny in the least. It demonstrates the lengths to which the deceptions were systematically carried out. They had the poor guy bury the thing in his azaleas, or whatever they grow in gardens over there.

I did not say it was a smoking gun. But what is undeniably true is that it's a banned device that was hidden - not in a government basement, or warehouse, or palace, but in a guy's backyard - by the very Iraqi regime which you have had such faith in.

*That one guy was found with a piece of a nuclear bomb, buried in his back yard ISN'T proof of anything, resembling an 'imminate threat' to the security of American citizens.

What do you think a uranium enriching centrifuge is used for? Making "Hershey bars"? It's used (admittedly, among FEW other purposes) for obtaining weapons-grade fissile material.

*ONE piece of something found in a guy's backyard is NOT a ready usable weapon that could be immediately deployed to cause the continential U.S. harm.

Not that it matters. It was banned, for good reason, by the UN resolutions that dictated the terms of Iraq's surrender in 1991. You can rationalize it away, along with the al Samoud missiles (BANNED), the drone aircraft (BANNED) and a dozen other examples as being individually insignificant.

*The pattern I see is of lots of attempts to develope weaponary, some of which exceeded UN standards. I did NOT see at pattern that would have led me to believe that Saddam represented a clear and present danger.

You may even be right in saying each is individually insignifcant. But only a fool would fail to see the pattern... and the beautiful things about patterns is that they allow you to make accurate guesses about things to come.

*I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder and you and the President's Administration "saw" a lot of things that just weren't there... I think you were drunk on your own power, and went to bed at 2:00 AM with a Perfect 10, only to wake up at 10:00 AM and see that she was actually a 2.

Pointing to a flimsy drone or a missile that only exceeds allowed distance by 10% and claiming that they prove Iraq WASN'T in the WMD business is just naive. You couldn't be more wrong, dude. They strongly suggest that there will be much more found.

*What 'kind' of other things are going to be found? MORE systems parts that alotted nothing more than minimal attempts at this or that...? OR...Are they GOING to find a working nuclear weapon with a wire leading to Saddam himself, waiting in a fox hole???

 

[DrChinese]

You may even be right in saying each is individually insignifcant. But only a fool would fail to see the pattern... and the beautiful things about patterns is that they allow you to make accurate guesses about things to come.

Pointing to a flimsy drone or a missile that only exceeds allowed distance by 10% and claiming that they prove Iraq WASN'T in the WMD business is just naive. You couldn't be more wrong, dude. They strongly suggest that there will be much more found.

Don't blow a gasket because they're not keeping to your idea of a timetable. There's a lot of azalea patches in Iraq.

Yes, two patterns have emerged: that Saddam essentially was correct when he said he was in compliance (as indicated by the Bush administration's own reports); and that Bush systematically exaggerated intelligence to indicate the opposite (as should be obvious after months of searches failing to locate even one ounce of the alleged 100-500 tons of WMDs). And in case you missed it, the concept that there was an ongoing nuclear weapons program in Iraq has been totally discredited. So if we are looking to unroot all azalea patches on the planet - since apparently this is the place we must fear them most - I better purchase some stock in companies that make digging machines.

So to be clear: no WMDs have been found in Iraq's azalea gardens to date. And in case you hadn't noticed, Iran and N. Korea have indicated they are tinkering with nuclear capability - and they have access to potential weapons grade fuel. Your argument makes no sense at all given the current facts. You are reciting the pre-war arguments as if we hadn't learned anything in the past 7 months.

 

[Jocko]

And the lack of WMD parts carefully hidden in scientists' gardens?

Well, there's that too, but Dr. Chinese has already implied that he thinks a uranium centrifuge is harmless - not a precursors to nuclear weapons... just used for making cotton candy. That's the kin of love ol' Papa Saddam was all about.

 

[Jocko]

Re: To Jocko:

Learn to use the quote function, numbnuts. It's not that hard.

*That one guy was found with a piece of a nuclear bomb, buried in his back yard ISN'T proof of anything, resembling an 'imminate threat' to the security of American citizens.

Why are you so certain it's "one guy" with "one banned device" for "one nuclear weapon"? Christ, Knabe, do you know how many square miles will need to be excavated before we can have ANY degree of certainty that the centrifuge was the ONLY banned device concealed?

Why must you continue to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt, with none to spare your own country - which WILL find these things. Being a rustic yourself, surely you must understand the concept of a needle in a haystack. Just because it's hard to find doesn't mean it won't find your own backside someday.

And it's IMMINENT. IMMINENT. IMMINENT!

*ONE piece of something found in a guy's backyard is NOT a ready usable weapon that could be immediately deployed to cause the continential U.S. harm.

You're repeating yourself, and you're still 100% wrong. If we had dug up every backyard in Baghdad and found nothing else, then you would be approaching credibility - but we haven't, and you're not.

Besides, the flagrant disregard for UN resolutions was the main purpose of the invasion (being a threat falling out of this noncompliance) as I always read it. Your "opinion," thank God, is not what international policy is based on.

*The pattern I see is of lots of attempts to develope weaponary, some of which exceeded UN standards. I did NOT see at pattern that would have led me to believe that Saddam represented a clear and present danger.

And tiger cubs are real cute. Tell that to Roy Horn. Again, because you're blind to the obvious pattern doesn't make it any less of a pattern - it just makes you that much more blind.

*I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder and you and the President's Administration "saw" a lot of things that just weren't there... I think you were drunk on your own power, and went to bed at 2:00 AM with a Perfect 10, only to wake up at 10:00 AM and see that she was actually a 2.

"You" were drunk on power? Apparently you have me confused with someone who briefs the Joint Chiefs.

The rest of this mangled tangle of raped metaphor and regurgitated platitude is indecipherable.

*What 'kind' of other things are going to be found? MORE systems parts that alotted nothing more than minimal attempts at this or that...? OR...Are they GOING to find a working nuclear weapon with a wire leading to Saddam himself, waiting in a fox hole???

So you're deaf as well as blind? They don't know yet. They've said as much. We are still plumbing the depths to which Saddam - the guy whose word is golden in your book - sank to deceive the UN inspectors and the international community. How many gardens will need to be dug up? Who knows? But it's a lot, you can count on that and it will take time.

It doesn't matter. No level of proof will ever convince you anyway, and you don't even accept the stated criteria for basing the question in the first place. Good thing for America that your approval isn't needed for anything more sophisticated that "would you like to Super Size that"?

BTW, I never engaged you about this. Why don't you run - er, roll - back to the sandbox and play with your peers?

 

[Jocko]

Yes, two patterns have emerged: that Saddam essentially was correct when he said he was in compliance (as indicated by the Bush administration's own reports);

Uh, I just gave you three big ol' examples that he was NOT in compliance, and you judge that they prove he was?

What IS it with you Texans?

...and that Bush systematically exaggerated intelligence to indicate the opposite (as should be obvious after months of searches failing to locate even one ounce of the alleged 100-500 tons of WMDs).

Welll, at least you've backed off calling him a liar, and the jury is still out on what PARTICULAR intelligence was exaggerated. Did he hype it to the public? Hell yes. So what? That's his job.

You have a fearful habit of assuming facts not in evidence:

The CIA lied
Bush exaggerated
There are no WMD's in Iraq
etc. etc.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but you aren't right YET.

And in case you missed it, the concept that there was an ongoing nuclear weapons program in Iraq has been totally discredited.

So I guess the Iraqi government was holding on to a centrifuge to put it on eBay. Sure, makes sense.

I will agree that no ADVANCED program existed, but that's not the same thing as there was none. The equipment is there for a reason... or do you bury random unimportant objects in your backyard?

Maybe I'd rather not know.

So if we are looking to unroot all azalea patches on the planet - since apparently this is the place we must fear them most - I better purchase some stock in companies that make digging machines.

You'd better stop giving Saddam credit for having integrity enough to not have civilians bury his banned devices on their property. Geez, I'm glad you're not an aircraft safety inspector - jsut a quick look around the hangar and assume eberything's okay, right?

So to be clear: no WMDs have been found in Iraq's azalea gardens to date.

True. But machines designed for their production have. Kinda merits a closer look, don't you think?

And in case you hadn't noticed, Iran and N. Korea have indicated they are tinkering with nuclear capability - and they have access to potential weapons grade fuel.

And I presume you'd support military action against either of these two? Or is this another attempt to divert the subject? My money's on the latter.

Your argument makes no sense at all given the current facts. You are reciting the pre-war arguments as if we hadn't learned anything in the past 7 months.

Ditto, pal.

Have patience. You and KOA seem to think you "know" how long it will take to find these things. What gives you the basis for your estimate? I'm truly curious.

 

[BillyTK]

Well, there's that too, but Dr. Chinese has already implied that he thinks a uranium centrifuge is harmless - not a precursors to nuclear weapons... just used for making cotton candy. That's the kin of love ol' Papa Saddam was all about.

And I'm sure that digging up the family vegetable patch will turn up more than onions and eggplant. But will it constitute enough to justify Bush and Blair's claims of a clear and present danger? I guess a uranium centrifuge is pretty deadly if you drop it on someone's head, but of itself it's a few ounces of uranium short of a nuclear weapons programme–I believe the claim was Iraq would acquire nuclear weapons within six months?

 

[DrChinese]

Uh, I just gave you three big ol' examples that he was NOT in compliance, and you judge that they prove he was?

Welll, at least you've backed off calling him a liar, and the jury is still out on what PARTICULAR intelligence was exaggerated. Did he hype it to the public? Hell yes. So what? That's his job.

...

I'm not saying you're wrong, but you aren't right YET.

So I guess the Iraqi government was holding on to a centrifuge to put it on eBay. Sure, makes sense.

I will agree that no ADVANCED program existed, but that's not the same thing as there was none. The equipment is there for a reason... or do you bury random unimportant objects in your backyard?

And I presume you'd support military action against either of these two? Or is this another attempt to divert the subject? My money's on the latter.

Have patience. You and KOA seem to think you "know" how long it will take to find these things. What gives you the basis for your estimate? I'm truly curious.

Just so you know I am not backing off anything and to be clear: Bush LIED. Knew or should have known, same difference to me.

We went to war in March because Saddam had 100-500 tons of WMDs and was an imminent threat to the US and others in the world, according to Bush. We have already debated the fact that WMDs are not equal to WMD development programs, which you and Bush now want to talk about. WMDs are also not equal to non-compliance with UNSC resolutions. Further, Bush has acknowledged there was no ongoing nuclear program in Iraq. As best as can be determined, Saddam had items within Iraq that were remnants of a variety of weapons programs from years ago, but no ongoing programs of any note and none at all related to WMDs. Don't quote minor exceptions - such as a certrifuge which can't hurt anyone without weapons grade uranium - and say they are the pattern. David Kay's report came up with very little, and that is the noteworthy pattern - i.e. nothing of substance found.

It Bush's claims were true, then we should have found evidence by now. I may be going out on a limb on this one, but I bet you believe in UFOs too.

 

[Jocko]

It Bush's claims were true, then we should have found evidence by now. I may be going out on a limb on this one, but I bet you believe in UFOs too.

I believe in UFO's. I don't believe in alien visitation, just unidentified objects in the sky. It's a fine point, but one that bears clarifying.

I never heard claims for discrete quantities of WMD's. Can you cite?

Also, how do you explain the ~500 tons of unaccounted mustard gas and other chemical weapons Iraq was known to have, but couldn't account for?

I think this is where your blatant double-standard comes into things: Bush lied, Saddam just kept sloppy records. Is that it?

500 tons. Like I said, that's a lot of back yards.

I think you're giving the wrong party the benefit of the doubt. I also find it amusing that conspiracy theorists like you look down your noses at UFO fanatics... as if you were any less credulous. Oswald acted alone. Get over it.

Oh, you failed to address my question as to whether or not you'd support military action against your two strawmen - er, I mean other nuclear-ambitious countries. Would you support such action, as you've implied, or must such things wait until a Democrat is in office?

 

[Jocko]

And I'm sure that digging up the family vegetable patch will turn up more than onions and eggplant. But will it constitute enough to justify Bush and Blair's claims of a clear and present danger? I guess a uranium centrifuge is pretty deadly if you drop it on someone's head, but of itself it's a few ounces of uranium short of a nuclear weapons programme–I believe the claim was Iraq would acquire nuclear weapons within six months?

I don't remember that claim myself - it was hyped to appear imminent, to be sure, but I never heard a timetable.

Still, it bothers me that so many are willing to convict during the opening arguments. Saddam had 12 years to prove what was there and what wasn't; we've only had 7 months.

And as I said, the centrifuge isn't a smoking gun - absolutely correct.

But then again, a toe isn't a whole corpse; that doesn't mean you shouldn't keep digging to see what it's attached to...!

 

[DrChinese]

1. I never heard claims for discrete quantities of WMD's. Can you cite?

2. Also, how do you explain the ~500 tons of unaccounted mustard gas and other chemical weapons Iraq was known to have, but couldn't account for?

3. I think this is where your blatant double-standard comes into things: Bush lied, Saddam just kept sloppy records. Is that it?

4. 500 tons. Like I said, that's a lot of back yards.

5. Oh, you failed to address my question as to whether or not you'd support military action against your two strawmen - er, I mean other nuclear-ambitious countries. Would you support such action, as you've implied, or must such things wait until a Democrat is in office?

1. Colin Powell to UN, Feb. 2003, 100-500 tons was a conservative estimate.
2. I never asserted they existed, so there is nothing to speculate about. This is logic flaw, because you are assuming they started at that point. The fact is, they don't currently exist ergo one of your assumptions is wrong or we have not looked hard enough. A little too big to be hidden and noone remember where they are. This is completely pre-war thinking, post war makes no sense.
3. Bush sometimes lied, Saddam sometimes lied. No double standard.
4. Especially considering they have not found one ounce yet. And they have looked.
5. I do NOT support US intervention in Iran or NK over nuclear weapons except under the explicit auspices of the UNSC. That was also true of Iraq.

 

[BillyTK]

I don't remember that claim myself - it was hyped to appear imminent, to be sure, but I never heard a timetable.

FYI:

Now, with matters far more grave at stake in the debate over Iraq, the administration has been no less brazen in its dishonesty. At a Sept. 7 appearance with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Bush said, "I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied -- finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic -- the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], that they were six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need."

An IAEA report in 1998 (around the time that inspectors were "finally denied access") did say Iraq was six to 24 months away from developing a weapon before the Gulf War in 1991, but its efforts to produce weapons-grade uranium were largely crippled by the war and subsequent inspection regime. It appears Bush was referring to that estimate to underscore the point that Iraq has already come close to developing nuclear weapons and will try to do so again.

Source: Spinsanity

[David Kay, of the 1990s UN Iraq inspection team] believes Iraq does not yet possess a nuclear bomb, but based on his reading of Iraq's procurement activities, they are well on their way to producing devices in three to six years - or even "six months if they have the fissile material."

Source: US Dept of State

<aside>You had expert hearings before the war! You lucky sods! Maybe Bush could pass on a few tips to Blair about democracy in action?</aside>

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

There's a few misconseptions flying around here.....The facts:

There was NO centrifuge, there were parts of a gas cetrifuge and plans that were buried 12 YEARS ago. They were evedently leftover from the pre-Desert Storm action. Hardly a 15 min. deployment threat

It resebles the aluminum tubes that were sited by G ll and company as parts for another centrifuge which turned out to be ( after a careful analysis ) short range rocket bodies. The kind that are launched from the back of a truck in clusters. In other words battlefield weapons.

 

[Jocko]

1. Colin Powell to UN, Feb. 2003, 100-500 tons was a conservative estimate.

Thank you for citing.

2. I never asserted they existed, so there is nothing to speculate about. This is logic flaw, because you are assuming they started at that point. The fact is, they don't currently exist ergo one of your assumptions is wrong or we have not looked hard enough. A little too big to be hidden and noone remember where they are. This is completely pre-war thinking, post war makes no sense.

I'm not saying YOU asserted their existence- the Iraqis did, after the Gulf War. You're SO vain!

They tallied 500 tons (approximately) of mustard gas and said they would destroy it. 12 years later, no accounting was forthcoming. Of course we found the shells that carry it to the battlefield, but that's just another red herring, I'm sure you'd say.

Since you've swallowed everything else that Saddam & Company have told the world, I trust you'll have no problem accepting that 500 tons of mustard gas has... disappeared. Poof.

3. Bush sometimes lied, Saddam sometimes lied. No double standard.

Bush may have lied. You're not qualified to state that yet. You have no possible idea what was a lie, what was repeated bad intel, and what you may have misinterpreted. When the investigation gets underway... you know, once the election heats up ... we'll know the facts of the matter and not have to rely on your speculation.

And can you name one significant instance of Saddam coming clean on anything? After all, you have 12 years of records to pull from.

4. Especially considering they have not found one ounce yet. And they have looked.

And continue to look. And will continue for months or even years. That's what you have to do when Saddam orders civilians to bury BANNED MATERIALS IN THEIR BACKYARDS.

5. I do NOT support US intervention in Iran or NK over nuclear weapons except under the explicit auspices of the UNSC. That was also true of Iraq.

So why did you urge the abandonment of Iraq in favor of going after the "real" culprits? And have you even considered that the UN may not have the unity or guts to address the issues constructively?

 

[Segnosaur]

Ironically enough, this more or less parallels events in the UK. Policy straight from Blair and his appointees, and a parliamentary debate which only happened after Blair had committed to joining Bush in the invasion of Iraq. This is particularly disturbing in the light of subsequent revelations that Blair sees the role of cabinet is to follow his wishes, not to debate policy as per its intended function.

At least some debate happened.

Actually, we had almost the opposite situation in Canada. Our Prime Minister decided to keep Canada out of the war, even though the majority of Canadians thought we should support the invasion (even if it was just token support). That decision was made by the Prime Minister himself, with no real input from the public or house of commons.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

I ask this question from a standpoint of ignorence, one could read the google items, but I would rather devine the opinion of "the man on the street".

Do You think that this had any relation to Chretien's background and his accomodatin of the french deritive population vis a' vie France's position?

 

[Skeptic]

3. Bush sometimes lied, Saddam sometimes lied. No double standard.

Your mother sometimes did bad things, Stalin sometimes did bad things. No double standard: your mother's and Stalin's actions are morally equivalent.

 

[King of the Americas]

WHERE are the weapons...

...we KNEW he had?

This is a re-occuring argument. It seems that We, or our U.S. State Department KNEW they had illegal weapons:

-Because WE sold them to him.

&

-We had intelligence people who KNEW he still and them, but can't say where they really are because we'd oust some of our important intelligence gathers.

Well, now that the regeim is 'out of the box', why can't we go GET the WMD?

Because they are gone, or 'expired'...?

Mustard Gas along with the rest of the chemical weapons we sold Saddam have a shelf life. Meaning that they aren't deployable forever.

If you were a dictator, who ruled by threat of force, would you openly admit your inability to direct force?

You've got a bunch of weapons that don't work, and the world's largest military is banging on your door demanding regeim change, and you think it is natural that a dictator wouldn't openly admit being disarmed???

I think Saddam was a lot brighter than anyone in our administration gave him credit for. Moreover, it seems that his plan all along was to lure American troops into Baghdad for all out urban warfare, AND we look foolish for finding NO WMD's...

The only thing that is clear is that Saddam was NOT an imminent threat to the U.S.

A week or so ago President Bush characterized him as a "gathering threat". Thus our newly adopted pre-emption policy, which EVERYONE but the "President's Men" disagree with.

 

[BillyTK]

At least some debate happened.

Yeah, but the debate was meaningless and worthless; the debate only happened at the demand of the House, and if Blair'd lost the vote at the end of the debate he would've had to resign, which is not the best situation to be in on the verge of a war.