Page 8 of 44 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 436

Thread: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

  1. #71
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    No one disputed that the quotes are from prior time periods. However, Clinton’s own people, when making the case for their action, indicated that Saddam has to meet his obligations under the cease fire agreement. They further indicated that Saddam would at some point restart his weapons program. As we know, Saddam was not meeting his obligations under the cease fire agreement in 2002/3 and it was alleged that his program had been restarted (and not just by the US). Hence the relevancy.
    People here do treat those comments as if they weren't from another time period, and that actions in the past had no bearing on them, and leave out comments by them that said that threat was over.

    Again, meeting is obligations wasn't the argument that won with the public, or really a valid reaason for us to invade outside the UN. Those obligations were to the UN and not just the US. violating UN resolutions is a UN matter. For us to invade outside the UN, we have to a reason beyond those. And by our agreements, it must be that we are being attacked or that an attack is eminent. That condition did not exist. So, Sadda is a bad man doesn't qualify as reason to invade. And outside the UN, neither does him not meeting his obligations.

    Of course they do. History doesn't happen in a vaccuum. History didn't start on the day Bush was elected. Many things happened that brought us to that point.

    It shows a pattern of behavior by Saddam. He was really just waiting for Bush to send some rockets at him (as Clinton did) then restart his weapons program with the people that still had knowledge of the program.

    From interviews conducted by the FBI after Saddam’s capture:

    "And that was his intention?" Pelley asks.

    "Yes," Piro says.

    "What weapons of mass destruction did he intend to pursue again once he had the opportunity?" Pelley asks.

    "He wanted to pursue all of WMD. So he wanted to reconstitute his entire WMD program," says Piro.

    "Chemical, biological, even nuclear," Pelley asks.

    "Yes," Piro says.
    No one suggests history happens in a vaccum, but comments out of context don't apply today. That's the point. Nor does Saddams history of behavior. His history certainly means we should not take his word at face value, and no one has suggested we should. But to invade a country, any country, the standard hs to be higgh. We must have serious cause, reason, justification. And those qquotes, even if they were in context, would not qualify (even though that's not why they are presented. They are present to sugest agreement with Bush).

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  2. #72
    Guru
    bicycleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Old Virginny
    Last Seen
    11-10-17 @ 08:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    4,215

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I know, I know. Reality has a liberal bias. Anything that factually contradicts your world view, your bias, must be liberally biased. I got that.
    Or your statement can be reworded regarding Snopes.

    "Boo Radley has a lberal bias. Anything that contradicts his world view, his bias must be conservatively biased."

  3. #73
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    People here do treat those comments as if they weren't from another time period, and that actions in the past had no bearing on them, and leave out comments by them that said that threat was over.
    I have never heard anyone state or even suggest that. The comments are relevant because they show that even they believed Saddam to be dangerous, to not be cooperating with inspections and had WMD. Operation Desert Fox, as Albright and Clinton and others stated, was not to rid Saddam of WMD, but simply to degrade his ability to make and deliver them. In what world (other than yours) does degrading mean the same as eliminating the threat? So, since it obviously wasn’t Operation Desert Fox that eliminated the threat, what activity after that operation is it that you believe eliminated it?

    Again, meeting is obligations wasn't the argument that won with the public, or really a valid reaason for us to invade outside the UN. Those obligations were to the UN and not just the US. violating UN resolutions is a UN matter. For us to invade outside the UN, we have to a reason beyond those. And by our agreements, it must be that we are being attacked or that an attack is eminent. That condition did not exist. So, Sadda is a bad man doesn't qualify as reason to invade. And outside the UN, neither does him not meeting his obligations.
    I would disagree with that slightly. Saddam not meeting his obligations was one of the arguments that won with the public. It confirmed in the mind of the public (and probably of those in charge) that Saddam had WMD. There were often reports of inspectors being delayed or even turned away which is rather suspicious activity for someone that doesn’t have anything to hide. Had Saddam cooperated, I find it highly unlikely that the war would have or even could have gone forward. Had Saddam actually cooperated with inspectors, people would have been far less likely to be for the war. I know I wouldn’t have been for the war and I am sure there are many others just like me.

  4. #74
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    BTW: The war had never actually ended. A cesefire predicated upon Saddam following the requirements laid out in that document was signed. Saddam didn't follow through on his obligations and the cease fire ended. We were still in a war posture.

  5. #75
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    I have never heard anyone state or even suggest that. The comments are relevant because they show that even they believed Saddam to be dangerous, to not be cooperating with inspections and had WMD. Operation Desert Fox, as Albright and Clinton and others stated, was not to rid Saddam of WMD, but simply to degrade his ability to make and deliver them. In what world (other than yours) does degrading mean the same as eliminating the threat? So, since it obviously wasn’t Operation Desert Fox that eliminated the threat, what activity after that operation is it that you believe eliminated it?
    1) Then. Hence why the ocntext, the declaration that the threat was over is important. Then.

    2) Dangerous? How dangerous? It has to reach the level of having to be invaded. Mere dangerous is not enough. He was a bad person, he did bad things, there was a small level of threat. It is not about finding quotes recognizing this. It is about showing they believed he reached the level of having to be invaded. Remember, most good lies start with a little truth.

    3) Dealing absolutes was part of Bush's problem. Something you seem to be doing above. You can never eliminate all threats. We certainly didn't do that by invading Iraq. Saddam did not have the ability to make and store stock piles, which is why much of what he had left was no longer viable, having degraded to the point of being useless.


    I would disagree with that slightly. Saddam not meeting his obligations was one of the arguments that won with the public. It confirmed in the mind of the public (and probably of those in charge) that Saddam had WMD. There were often reports of inspectors being delayed or even turned away which is rather suspicious activity for someone that doesn’t have anything to hide. Had Saddam cooperated, I find it highly unlikely that the war would have or even could have gone forward. Had Saddam actually cooperated with inspectors, people would have been far less likely to be for the war. I know I wouldn’t have been for the war and I am sure there are many others just like me.
    Outside of polticial sites like this, I don't see much of the public even aware, let alone convinced by that argument. As for Saddam, and people don't really think this through much, so it may have seem to many that turning away meant he had something, Saddam had to make countries like Iran think he could defend himself. He had to walk a fine line, keeping the UN off him and Iran worried. Had we been more concerned with evidence than appearances, Rumsfeld would have never gotten away with absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    And remember, inspectors were on the ground. They were asking for time. They were not convinced invasion was warranted. The evidence suggests there was nothing Saddam could have done to prevent invasion. It was always just a matter of when. Just because it wasn't easy, again, doesn't justify leaping all the war to invasion and war, especially considering the cost.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  6. #76
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    BTW: The war had never actually ended. A cesefire predicated upon Saddam following the requirements laid out in that document was signed. Saddam didn't follow through on his obligations and the cease fire ended. We were still in a war posture.
    Again, that was with the UN, under the security council. You can't leave the UN and still use that reasoning.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  7. #77
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:26 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,414
    Blog Entries
    12

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by SE102 View Post
    So they make up a threat, find nothing, then find a little something BINGO making the lie excusable.
    Please be specific. Who lied and about what?
    Seriously.

    .
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

  8. #78
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    Please be specific. Who lied and about what?
    Seriously.

    .
    lie1    /laɪ/ Show Spelled
    [lahy] Show IPA
    noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
    –noun
    1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
    2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
    3. an inaccurate or false statement.
    4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.

    Lie | Define Lie at Dictionary.com

    Didn't someone chronicle 935 lies? In any case, in concert with his administration, they hinted at links between Saddam and OBL. Use a technique called anchoring, in which you use the words, Saddam, terrorism and 9/11 to anchor a connection in the mind of audience, which is why so many people belived Saddam was behind 9/11. Used intel inappropriately (Curveball, Libi, and Chalibi and his heors in error) that was doubted and presented it as if there were no doubts. Where I come from, these things alone are enough to support calling him a liar.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  9. #79
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    2) Dangerous? How dangerous? It has to reach the level of having to be invaded.
    That’s rather the rub, isn’t it? You (and most democrats really) prefer to wait until a threat has reached a level that we can no longer do anything about before you finally want to get involved. Let the threat grow and grow, then, maybe we’ll get involved.

    Mere dangerous is not enough.
    Sure it is. PS. I truly find “mere dangerous” to be laughable. You take care of threats when they are evident. You don’t keep passing the buck as both Bush1 and Clinton did. When that happens, the danger levels have increased to a point where they can not really be managed any longer. Saddam has acknowledged that he still had the scientists available and had every intention of restarting his WMD program once Bush left him alone. If the threat had not been taken care of while still “mere dangerous” he would have eventually gotten to a point where he was “semi- dangerous or even higher (we can call that plain dangerous if you like). In other words, the threat was never going to be eliminated, as you like to claim.


    Outside of polticial sites like this, I don't see much of the public even aware, let alone convinced by that argument.

    Ah, I always love the people that know what is on everyone’s minds. I had many discussions with co-workers and friend (republicans and democrats) and almost all thought that Saddam acting in that manner meant that he almost certainly had something. I’ve even had some fairly recent conversations with people, and they always agree on that point. So, I see the exact opposite of you. For you to announce that the images on TV of weapons inspectors being turned away and delayed didn’t have any affect on peoples perceptions just seems like a very silly argument.

    And remember, inspectors were on the ground. They were asking for time. They were not convinced invasion was warranted. The evidence suggests there was nothing Saddam could have done to prevent invasion. It was always just a matter of when. Just because it wasn't easy, again, doesn't justify leaping all the war to invasion and war, especially considering the cost.
    If only we based our security on the thoughts of UN weapons inspectors who only get a part of the picture then you might have a great point. Still, I don’t see how it was a “leap” to war. The ceasefire agreement had been in violation for a long time (going back to Clinton). Numerous resolutions later an invasion finally occurred.

    Again, that was with the UN, under the security council. You can't leave the UN and still use that reasoning.
    Sure you can. Saddam failed to follow through with his obligations, the UN passed a resolution that serious consequences would follow if he didn't follow through. He didn't follow-through and serious consequences followed. I don't care what some other countries thought was meant by serious consequences. You can't get much more serious then what happened. Bush even went the additional step of getting authorization for the war from congress.
    Last edited by buck; 10-27-10 at 03:33 PM.

  10. #80
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    In any case, in concert with his administration, they hinted at links between Saddam and OBL.
    There were meetings between Saddam and those affiliated with al-queda. However, it was discovered that Saddam did not trust al-queda for various reasons. Nonetheless, Saddam was actively seeking to increase his ability to use "terrorist-like activities" for political reasons, to increase his asymmetric warfare abilities, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Use a technique called anchoring, in which you use the words, Saddam, terrorism and 9/11 to anchor a connection in the mind of audience, which is why so many people belived Saddam was behind 9/11.
    Bush stated there was no link between al-queda and Saddam to the public. There was worry previously that there WAS a connection due to meetings mentioned before and his harboring of known terrorists.

    Did the administration use propaganda to gain support for the war? Yes, like what is done by every leader in American history during wartime.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Used intel inappropriately (Curveball, Libi, and Chalibi and his heors in error) that was doubted and presented it as if there were no doubts. Where I come from, these things alone are enough to support calling him a liar.
    Welcome to politics.

    I assume you aren't dumb enough to believe what a car-sales man tells you at face value. Why are you so credulous to what politicians tell you?
    Last edited by scourge99; 10-27-10 at 03:48 PM.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

Page 8 of 44 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •