Tri for President Bush!

[[email protected]]

Mark,

I think you're approaching these questions with the right motivations,
but I respecfully think that you're conclusions are offbase.

I am all for using force in the Middle East. I live in NYC,
experienced 9/11 right up close, and I am no pacificist. That said, I
see Iraq as a complete misuse of our resources.

We now know that there was no imminent threat in Iraq. In fact, there
was no real threat at all. Hussein's weapons programs were not even
close to being advanced. Iraq was way behind Iran, North Korea,
Pakistan, and even Libya when it comes to weapons production. In
short, there is no reason to believe that Hussein was our number one
threat. This seems fairly indisputable (except to hardline Republicans
and knee-jerk patriots who can face the truth). And so I simply
believe that we should have been using our troops over the past three
years to go after other more serious threats.

Once they realized that they got the WMD argument wrong, the
conservative tactic has been to fall back on "flip-flop"
justifications. 1) Hussein was a dictator who gassed his own people.
And 2) Iraq will be a beacon of democracy that will stabilize the
region, so even if we got the WMD argument wrong, it's worth it.

Both arguments strike me as being weak. Hussein was a dictator, but,
he was at once our dictator. We armed him during the Iran-Iraq war,
and he commited many of his worst atrocities while we actively
supported him. We just didn't care at the time. It only became an
issue once we wanted to find a reason to go to war. And that makes the
humanitarian argument seem fairly hollow to me.

As for Iraq becoming a stable democracy, well, maybe it will ... in
50-100 years. In the near term, democracy will result in another
Shiite Islamic state like the one we have Iran, and that will do
nothing to stabilize the region. It will be a very long time before
Iraq becomes anything close to a stabilizing force, a model for the
rest of the region. Democracies don't get built overnight. In the
meantime, it will be a huge distraction for us. And I don't that this
is an opportunity cost that we can afford.


>
> I think your view of "no good reason" is quite different from my view.
> I see a tyrannic dictator who had killed at least 300,000 of his own
> people (we've gone into other countries for less). We would have
> taken him out in '91, but Saddam signed a cease-fire guaranteeing he
> would destroy his known and admitted WMD stores (something he never
> did comply with). He ignored 17 UN sanctions, tried to assassinate an
> ex-US president, and was openly aiding terrorists. Quite simply, he
> had to go.
>
> And I happen to agree with Bush's assessment of what a free Iraq and
> Afghanistan will mean to the region. Only time will tell if we're
> right, or hopelessly optimistic. Thing is, my international
> experience makes me even more convinced that people really do tend to
> want the same things, even across very different cultures.
>
> >Most every American knows in their heart of hearts that this was a
> >largely pointless war. If you're really honest with yourself, you'll
> >admit that the "imminent threat" wasn't in Iraq; that other countries
> >(N. Korea, for example) and terrorist organizations present a much
> >more severe threat; and that we've diverted our resources in a serious
> >way. Most Americans won't consciously admit this because they want to
> >support the troops. But I can guarantee you that if N. Korea attacked
> >us tomorrow, there would be tremendous anger towards Bush because
> >everyone would suddenly see Iraq as a needless drain of our resources.
>
> I think a better question would have been this... had Bush NOT taken
> out Saddam, and then we were attacked and tens of thousands of
> Americans killed by WMDs that were traced to Iraq, can you even
> IMAGINE the outcry by those who are now screaming the loudest about
> going into Iraq? Personally, I like the fact that the US has a little
> more credibility when we bark now (witness the huge changes in Saudi
> Arabia and Pakistan toward terrorists, and the disarming of Libya, for
> example). But that's just me - we'll both know in 20 years whether
> it's the right path or not.
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[TenKBabe]

> there is no reason to believe that Hussein was our number one
> threat. This seems fairly indisputable (except to hardline
Republicans
> and knee-jerk patriots who can face the truth).

On that I agree. We *can* face the truth. Thanks for recognizing that.
tkb

 

[[email protected]]

There is room at this point to disagree on the war and its validity.
There isn't room, however, to say that the WMD threat was "imminent."

We have found no evidence during our 18 months there that these
weapons existed. Our weapons inspectors have said that they don't
think that there were weapons. And the administration has even dropped
this argument.

So if you're working with real facts, there isn't really room to argue
that there was an imminent threat in Iraq.

The only way to say there was an immininent threat is to say that the
weapons must exist, like God exists, because you have faith that it
does. But if that's your position, any kind of rational discussion
based on facts becomes impossible/pointless.




"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Most every American knows in their heart of hearts that this was a
> > largely pointless war. If you're really honest with yourself, you'll
> > admit that the "imminent threat" wasn't in Iraq;
>
> So anyone with an opposing view is not being honest with themselves?
> This is rather arrogant.
>
> tkb

 

[[email protected]]

Just to be clear, I didn't make this comment: "you are embarrasing us so leave"

that was someone else.

epson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > I grudgingly supported the war at the time, so I am not some hardline
> > democrat who will reflexively oppose the opposition. What irks me is
> > not necessarily that the Bush got the intelligence wrong (although I
> > am not pleased about it), but that the president hasn't even come
> > close to recognizing that it's majorly problematic that we got the
> > intelligence wrong, that we attacked a country for ultimately no good
> > reason, and that this mission is wasting our time. Instead it's spin,
> > spin, spin. There's no accountability, and no sense that the truth
> > matters.
> >
> > Most every American knows in their heart of hearts that this was a
> > largely pointless war. If you're really honest with yourself, you'll
> > admit that the "imminent threat" wasn't in Iraq; that other countries
> > (N. Korea, for example) and terrorist organizations present a much
> > more severe threat; and that we've diverted our resources in a serious
> > way. Most Americans won't consciously admit this because they want to
> > support the troops. But I can guarantee you that if N. Korea attacked
> > us tomorrow, there would be tremendous anger towards Bush because
> > everyone would suddenly see Iraq as a needless drain of our resources.
> >
>
> OK, dhcrunner (Democratic Headquarters Runner?), actually I understand
> although we obviously disagree. I do see reason for the war, like
> everyone wish it was over and will be glad when it is.
> My real issue was with the thinking that "you are embarrasing us so
> leave" which smacks of including me in a group that is too PC to suffer
> any differing opinions and would indicate that we are all of one mind
> here. Also would suggest that I was part of a group (like many of the
> liberal bent) that is obcessed with careing about what someone thinks
> about my/our position. Some people need to just grow a set, .. well,
> unless they are female in which case. . get some fortitude, self estem or
> whatever. . .
> Tri On
> Van

 

[TenKBabe]

dhcrun wrote:

> There is room at this point to disagree on the war and its validity.
> There isn't room, however, to say that the WMD threat was "imminent."
>
> We have found no evidence during our 18 months there that these
> weapons existed. Our weapons inspectors have said that they don't
> think that there were weapons. And the administration has even
dropped
> this argument.
>
> So if you're working with real facts, there isn't really room to
argue
> that there was an imminent threat in Iraq.

At that time we believed they were real facts and we acted accordingly.
Even now, there is nothing to say that WMD won't ever be found.
Nonetheless, there is plenty of evidence that he committed atrocities
against his own people. Atrocities that should not go unpunished. Not
that we're the world's police, but out of a moral obligation as the
super power, we owe it to the good people of Iraq.

tkb

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] wrote:

>Mark,
>
>I think you're approaching these questions with the right motivations,
>but I respecfully think that you're conclusions are offbase.

I appreciate your candor, and your civility (not always the case in
these discussions). ;-)

>I am all for using force in the Middle East. I live in NYC,
>experienced 9/11 right up close, and I am no pacificist. That said, I
>see Iraq as a complete misuse of our resources.
>
>We now know that there was no imminent threat in Iraq. In fact, there
>was no real threat at all. Hussein's weapons programs were not even
>close to being advanced. Iraq was way behind Iran, North Korea,
>Pakistan, and even Libya when it comes to weapons production. In
>short, there is no reason to believe that Hussein was our number one
>threat.

On this we have to disagree. If you read the pre-war UN weapons
inspection report, it would be impossible to NOT rate Iraq as our
"number one threat" (as in fact Clinton's SoS Madeleine Albright did
in 1998 when she said "the risk that the leaders of (Iraq) will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is
the greatest secuity risk we face".

>This seems fairly indisputable (except to hardline Republicans
>and knee-jerk patriots who can face the truth). And so I simply
>believe that we should have been using our troops over the past three
>years to go after other more serious threats.

While there are other despotic regimes out there, who may even have
WMD capability - none (IMHO) come close to deserving to be taken out
more than Saddam. He's openly used the WMDs, has killed hundreds of
thousands of his own people, has invaded two neighboring countries,
has attempted to assassinate an ex-US president, and openly supported
terrorist organizations. That's a very disturbing combination - one
that even North Korea or Iran or Libya can't match.

>Once they realized that they got the WMD argument wrong, the
>conservative tactic has been to fall back on "flip-flop"
>justifications. 1) Hussein was a dictator who gassed his own people.
>And 2) Iraq will be a beacon of democracy that will stabilize the
>region, so even if we got the WMD argument wrong, it's worth it.

Review the speeches, and you'll see that although the WMD were
creating the urgency, the other factors were all mentioned all along.
In fact, just a week or so ago, Kerry was deriding Bush for using 24
rationales to go to war (not just one).

>Both arguments strike me as being weak. Hussein was a dictator, but,
>he was at once our dictator. We armed him during the Iran-Iraq war,
>and he commited many of his worst atrocities while we actively
>supported him. We just didn't care at the time. It only became an
>issue once we wanted to find a reason to go to war. And that makes the
>humanitarian argument seem fairly hollow to me.

He was no saint when we did prop him up against an even worse Iranian
regime, but he's "gotten worse"... the really scary thing is that at
the time he DID look like a good bet.

>As for Iraq becoming a stable democracy, well, maybe it will ... in
>50-100 years. In the near term, democracy will result in another
>Shiite Islamic state like the one we have Iran, and that will do
>nothing to stabilize the region. It will be a very long time before
>Iraq becomes anything close to a stabilizing force, a model for the
>rest of the region. Democracies don't get built overnight. In the
>meantime, it will be a huge distraction for us. And I don't that this
>is an opportunity cost that we can afford.

And I, OTOH, think this is an opportunity we can't afford to miss.

Which of us is right? Let's look again in 10 years and we'll know for
sure. ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

>> I think your view of "no good reason" is quite different from my view.
>> I see a tyrannic dictator who had killed at least 300,000 of his own
>> people (we've gone into other countries for less). We would have
>> taken him out in '91, but Saddam signed a cease-fire guaranteeing he
>> would destroy his known and admitted WMD stores (something he never
>> did comply with). He ignored 17 UN sanctions, tried to assassinate an
>> ex-US president, and was openly aiding terrorists. Quite simply, he
>> had to go.
>>
>> And I happen to agree with Bush's assessment of what a free Iraq and
>> Afghanistan will mean to the region. Only time will tell if we're
>> right, or hopelessly optimistic. Thing is, my international
>> experience makes me even more convinced that people really do tend to
>> want the same things, even across very different cultures.
>>
>> >Most every American knows in their heart of hearts that this was a
>> >largely pointless war. If you're really honest with yourself, you'll
>> >admit that the "imminent threat" wasn't in Iraq; that other countries
>> >(N. Korea, for example) and terrorist organizations present a much
>> >more severe threat; and that we've diverted our resources in a serious
>> >way. Most Americans won't consciously admit this because they want to
>> >support the troops. But I can guarantee you that if N. Korea attacked
>> >us tomorrow, there would be tremendous anger towards Bush because
>> >everyone would suddenly see Iraq as a needless drain of our resources.
>>
>> I think a better question would have been this... had Bush NOT taken
>> out Saddam, and then we were attacked and tens of thousands of
>> Americans killed by WMDs that were traced to Iraq, can you even
>> IMAGINE the outcry by those who are now screaming the loudest about
>> going into Iraq? Personally, I like the fact that the US has a little
>> more credibility when we bark now (witness the huge changes in Saudi
>> Arabia and Pakistan toward terrorists, and the disarming of Libya, for
>> example). But that's just me - we'll both know in 20 years whether
>> it's the right path or not.
>>
>> Mark Hickey
>> Habanero Cycles
>> http://www.habcycles.com
>> Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] wrote:

>There is room at this point to disagree on the war and its validity.
>There isn't room, however, to say that the WMD threat was "imminent."
>
>We have found no evidence during our 18 months there that these
>weapons existed. Our weapons inspectors have said that they don't
>think that there were weapons. And the administration has even dropped
>this argument.

You really should read the UN weapons inspection report - it's quite
clear that Iraq had considerable capability to manufacture WMDs on
short notice, and in all probability was sitting on huge stores of
viable WMDs, including 10,000 liters of anthrax. The fact that they
might now sing a different tune isn't really important to the
decisions that were made when all the information was pointing to a
HUGE problem in Iraq.

>So if you're working with real facts, there isn't really room to argue
>that there was an imminent threat in Iraq.
>
>The only way to say there was an immininent threat is to say that the
>weapons must exist, like God exists, because you have faith that it
>does. But if that's your position, any kind of rational discussion
>based on facts becomes impossible/pointless.

You REALLY need to read the report...

http://www.nti.org/db/profiles/iraq/fulltext/unmovic_jan6.pdf

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> > Most every American knows in their heart of hearts that this was a
>> > largely pointless war. If you're really honest with yourself, you'll
>> > admit that the "imminent threat" wasn't in Iraq;
>>
>> So anyone with an opposing view is not being honest with themselves?
>> This is rather arrogant.
>>
>> tkb

 

[[email protected]]

The whole argument that America suddenly wants to save the poor Iraqi
people is just a cover-your-ass argument that was pushed front and
center when no WMDs were found. Talk about flip-flop.

The republicans could care less about the Iraqis. The Reagan
administration actively armed and supported Hussein in the 1980s, at
exactly the same time that Hussein was commiting many of the
atrocities that we now point to to justify the war. And we turned a
blind eye. We only started to care once we wanted to need to find an
ex post facto reason for war, once the main one fell through.

The hollowness of the Bush administration's moral argument is clearly
belied by the fact that we are not doing a damn thing in Sudan where
there is an actual genocide going on. (And genocide is a word that
even the administration has used.) So is the superpower upholding its
moral obligation? No. Why? Perhaps because morality has never figured
into this administration's calculations.

Anyway, go on. Keep apologizing for Bush. Keep helping him find new
rationales for the war when all the others fall through. I'm sure
you'll come around in 3-5 years when we're still in this mess and we
have new, more important wars to fight.



>
> At that time we believed they were real facts and we acted accordingly.
> Even now, there is nothing to say that WMD won't ever be found.
> Nonetheless, there is plenty of evidence that he committed atrocities
> against his own people. Atrocities that should not go unpunished. Not
> that we're the world's police, but out of a moral obligation as the
> super power, we owe it to the good people of Iraq.
>
> tkb

 

[[email protected]]

And, by the way, there is no real reason to believe that the
administration innocently believed that there were WMDs in Iraq when
there were none.

There's no shortage of evidence that the administration interpreted
the evidence in the way that it wanted. Today's New York Times article
highlights but one instance of this. See below. Bush shouldn't be
given a pass here. He lied our way into this war. He needs to be held
accountable and voted out of office.

Here's the funny thing about Republicans. They impeach a president for
lying about sex, yet they don't mind a second if the president, so
long as he's a republican, sends a country to war under false
pretenses. Oh the hypocrisy.

New York Times
How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelligence
By DAVID BARSTOW, WILLIAM J. BROAD and JEFF GERTH

n 2002, at a crucial juncture on the path to war, senior members of
the Bush administration gave a series of speeches and interviews in
which they asserted that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear
weapons program. Speaking to a group of Wyoming Republicans in
September, Vice President **** Cheney said the United States now had
"irrefutable evidence" - thousands of tubes made of high-strength
aluminum, tubes that the Bush administration said were destined for
clandestine Iraqi uranium centrifuges, before some were seized at the
behest of the United States.

Those tubes became a critical exhibit in the administration's brief
against Iraq. As the only physical evidence the United States could
brandish of Mr. Hussein's revived nuclear ambitions, they gave
credibility to the apocalyptic imagery invoked by President Bush and
his advisers. The tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons
programs," Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security
adviser, explained on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. "We don't want the smoking
gun to be a mushroom cloud."

But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the
government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes
were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central
Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of
whom spoke on condition of anonymity. The experts, at the Energy
Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small
artillery rockets.

The White House, though, embraced the disputed theory that the tubes
were for nuclear centrifuges, an idea first championed in April 2001
by a junior analyst at the C.I.A. Senior nuclear scientists considered
that notion implausible, yet in the months after 9/11, as the
administration built a case for confronting Iraq, the centrifuge
theory gained currency as it rose to the top of the government.

 

[Witheld]

[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> And, by the way, there is no real reason to believe that the
> administration innocently believed that there were WMDs in Iraq when
> there were none.
>
> There's no shortage of evidence that the administration interpreted
> the evidence in the way that it wanted. Today's New York Times article
> highlights but one instance of this. See below. Bush shouldn't be
> given a pass here. He lied our way into this war. He needs to be held
> accountable and voted out of office.
>
> Here's the funny thing about Republicans. They impeach a president for
> lying about sex, yet they don't mind a second if the president, so
> long as he's a republican, sends a country to war under false
> pretenses. Oh the hypocrisy.


I am not a Republican so don't take this the wrong way. However,
saying that the Clinton lie was "about sex" is not being
intellectually honest.

What many people forget is that the former President did not lie
because of Monica Lewinski; he lied because of Paula Jones.

Paula Jones' allegations were the reason behind the questioning.

The former President lied "about sex" so that another citizen (Paula
Jones) would be denied her civil liberties, a day in court. *That* was
the impeachable offense.

You may disagree, of course. IMO, the nature of President Clinton's
lie was sensationalized and obscured by "the Jerry Spinger Nation".


rsquared

>
> New York Times
> How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelligence
> By DAVID BARSTOW, WILLIAM J. BROAD and JEFF GERTH
>
> n 2002, at a crucial juncture on the path to war, senior members of
> the Bush administration gave a series of speeches and interviews in
> which they asserted that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear
> weapons program. Speaking to a group of Wyoming Republicans in
> September, Vice President **** Cheney said the United States now had
> "irrefutable evidence" - thousands of tubes made of high-strength
> aluminum, tubes that the Bush administration said were destined for
> clandestine Iraqi uranium centrifuges, before some were seized at the
> behest of the United States.
>
> Those tubes became a critical exhibit in the administration's brief
> against Iraq. As the only physical evidence the United States could
> brandish of Mr. Hussein's revived nuclear ambitions, they gave
> credibility to the apocalyptic imagery invoked by President Bush and
> his advisers. The tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons
> programs," Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security
> adviser, explained on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. "We don't want the smoking
> gun to be a mushroom cloud."
>
> But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the
> government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes
> were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central
> Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of
> whom spoke on condition of anonymity. The experts, at the Energy
> Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small
> artillery rockets.
>
> The White House, though, embraced the disputed theory that the tubes
> were for nuclear centrifuges, an idea first championed in April 2001
> by a junior analyst at the C.I.A. Senior nuclear scientists considered
> that notion implausible, yet in the months after 9/11, as the
> administration built a case for confronting Iraq, the centrifuge
> theory gained currency as it rose to the top of the government.

 

[rtk]

All my dismay and horror about Clinton's sleazy behavior and lies flew
out the window when it was reported he simultaneously spoke to a senator
on the phone while eating a pizza and entertaining Monica's face in his
lap. This was triathletic activity of impressive coordination and
without even transistions. From that point on he was only laughable,
lacking the finer taste of Kennedy and others, but I no longer was
aghast. That's his personal style, hurtful to the people near him, but
not fatal to 1000 Americans and who knows how many Iraqis. I only know
of one truly good man who was in office, whose only sin was covetting
and not many of us would want him back. I don't think it's goodness
that counts most, but the ability to cooperate with others to keep
people everywhere from being killed. Being fed, housed, clothed, and
educated counts, too, a lot more than his peccadilloes, however disgusting.

Ruth Kazez



Witheld wrote:

> [email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>And, by the way, there is no real reason to believe that the
>>administration innocently believed that there were WMDs in Iraq when
>>there were none.
>>
>>There's no shortage of evidence that the administration interpreted
>>the evidence in the way that it wanted. Today's New York Times article
>>highlights but one instance of this. See below. Bush shouldn't be
>>given a pass here. He lied our way into this war. He needs to be held
>>accountable and voted out of office.
>>
>>Here's the funny thing about Republicans. They impeach a president for
>>lying about sex, yet they don't mind a second if the president, so
>>long as he's a republican, sends a country to war under false
>>pretenses. Oh the hypocrisy.
>
>
>
> I am not a Republican so don't take this the wrong way. However,
> saying that the Clinton lie was "about sex" is not being
> intellectually honest.
>
> What many people forget is that the former President did not lie
> because of Monica Lewinski; he lied because of Paula Jones.
>
> Paula Jones' allegations were the reason behind the questioning.
>
> The former President lied "about sex" so that another citizen (Paula
> Jones) would be denied her civil liberties, a day in court. *That* was
> the impeachable offense.
>
> You may disagree, of course. IMO, the nature of President Clinton's
> lie was sensationalized and obscured by "the Jerry Spinger Nation".
>
>
> rsquared
>
>
>>New York Times
>>How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelligence
>>By DAVID BARSTOW, WILLIAM J. BROAD and JEFF GERTH
>>
>>n 2002, at a crucial juncture on the path to war, senior members of
>>the Bush administration gave a series of speeches and interviews in
>>which they asserted that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear
>>weapons program. Speaking to a group of Wyoming Republicans in
>>September, Vice President **** Cheney said the United States now had
>>"irrefutable evidence" - thousands of tubes made of high-strength
>>aluminum, tubes that the Bush administration said were destined for
>>clandestine Iraqi uranium centrifuges, before some were seized at the
>>behest of the United States.
>>
>>Those tubes became a critical exhibit in the administration's brief
>>against Iraq. As the only physical evidence the United States could
>>brandish of Mr. Hussein's revived nuclear ambitions, they gave
>>credibility to the apocalyptic imagery invoked by President Bush and
>>his advisers. The tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons
>>programs," Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security
>>adviser, explained on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. "We don't want the smoking
>>gun to be a mushroom cloud."
>>
>>But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the
>>government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes
>>were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central
>>Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of
>>whom spoke on condition of anonymity. The experts, at the Energy
>>Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small
>>artillery rockets.
>>
>>The White House, though, embraced the disputed theory that the tubes
>>were for nuclear centrifuges, an idea first championed in April 2001
>>by a junior analyst at the C.I.A. Senior nuclear scientists considered
>>that notion implausible, yet in the months after 9/11, as the
>>administration built a case for confronting Iraq, the centrifuge
>>theory gained currency as it rose to the top of the government.

 

[[email protected]]

Even though I'm a democrat, I can admit that Clinton was basically a
failure as a president. This was due partly to the Republicans who
attacked him at every step of the way, but it was also partly his own
doing. I only wish that Republicans could have the sense to look at
Bush and recognize that he's a substandard president who has made
serious mistakes. But that will never happen in our Rush Limbaugh
nation.



> I am not a Republican so don't take this the wrong way. However,
> saying that the Clinton lie was "about sex" is not being
> intellectually honest.
>
> What many people forget is that the former President did not lie
> because of Monica Lewinski; he lied because of Paula Jones.
>
> Paula Jones' allegations were the reason behind the questioning.
>
> The former President lied "about sex" so that another citizen (Paula
> Jones) would be denied her civil liberties, a day in court. *That* was
> the impeachable offense.
>
> You may disagree, of course. IMO, the nature of President Clinton's
> lie was sensationalized and obscured by "the Jerry Spinger Nation".
>
>
> rsquared
>
> >
> > New York Times
> > How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelligence
> > By DAVID BARSTOW, WILLIAM J. BROAD and JEFF GERTH
> >
> > n 2002, at a crucial juncture on the path to war, senior members of
> > the Bush administration gave a series of speeches and interviews in
> > which they asserted that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear
> > weapons program. Speaking to a group of Wyoming Republicans in
> > September, Vice President **** Cheney said the United States now had
> > "irrefutable evidence" - thousands of tubes made of high-strength
> > aluminum, tubes that the Bush administration said were destined for
> > clandestine Iraqi uranium centrifuges, before some were seized at the
> > behest of the United States.
> >
> > Those tubes became a critical exhibit in the administration's brief
> > against Iraq. As the only physical evidence the United States could
> > brandish of Mr. Hussein's revived nuclear ambitions, they gave
> > credibility to the apocalyptic imagery invoked by President Bush and
> > his advisers. The tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons
> > programs," Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security
> > adviser, explained on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. "We don't want the smoking
> > gun to be a mushroom cloud."
> >
> > But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the
> > government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes
> > were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central
> > Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of
> > whom spoke on condition of anonymity. The experts, at the Energy
> > Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small
> > artillery rockets.
> >
> > The White House, though, embraced the disputed theory that the tubes
> > were for nuclear centrifuges, an idea first championed in April 2001
> > by a junior analyst at the C.I.A. Senior nuclear scientists considered
> > that notion implausible, yet in the months after 9/11, as the
> > administration built a case for confronting Iraq, the centrifuge
> > theory gained currency as it rose to the top of the government.

 

[epson]

[email protected] wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>> > New York Times
>> > How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelligence
>> > By DAVID BARSTOW, WILLIAM J. BROAD and JEFF GERTH
>> >
>> > n 2002, at a crucial juncture on the path to war, senior members of
>> > the Bush administration gave a series of speeches and interviews in
>> > which they asserted that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear
>> > weapons program. Speaking to a group of Wyoming Republicans in
>> > September, Vice President **** Cheney said the United States now
>> > had "irrefutable evidence" - thousands of tubes made of
>> > high-strength aluminum, tubes that the Bush administration said
>> > were destined for clandestine Iraqi uranium centrifuges, before
>> > some were seized at the behest of the United States.
>> >
>> > Those tubes became a critical exhibit in the administration's brief
>> > against Iraq. As the only physical evidence the United States could
>> > brandish of Mr. Hussein's revived nuclear ambitions, they gave
>> > credibility to the apocalyptic imagery invoked by President Bush
>> > and his advisers. The tubes were "only really suited for nuclear
>> > weapons programs," Condoleezza Rice, the president's national
>> > security adviser, explained on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. "We don't want
>> > the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
>> >
>> > But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the
>> > government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the
>> > tubes were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the
>> > Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration
>> > officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity. The
>> > experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were likely
>> > intended for small artillery rockets.
>> >
>> > The White House, though, embraced the disputed theory that the
>> > tubes were for nuclear centrifuges, an idea first championed in
>> > April 2001 by a junior analyst at the C.I.A. Senior nuclear
>> > scientists considered that notion implausible, yet in the months
>> > after 9/11, as the administration built a case for confronting
>> > Iraq, the centrifuge theory gained currency as it rose to the top
>> > of the government.



Lets see what Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Madeline Albright, Al Gore et.
al had to say about Saddam's WMD's




Clinton/Gore/Kerry/Albright/Burglar all briefed the new incoming
administration in 2001 that Saddam was about to acquire the nuclear
bomb.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/index.html

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq"
"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff
unaccounted for."
--Bill Clinton June 19, 2004

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the
world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."
--Bill Clinton December 16, 1998

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33853

"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and
chemical material unaccounted for ... it is incontestable that on the
day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks."
"We might have gotten it all, we might have gotten half of it, we might
have gotten none of it. But we didn't know"
--Bill Clinton on Larry King Show July 2003

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/index.html

"I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to
the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian
intelligence several times received ... information that official organs
of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the
United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian
locations."
--Russian President Vladimir Putin June 17, 2004

http://www.kqrs.com/listingsEntry.asp?ID=211374&PT=Morning+Show

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 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." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great
deal here. For the risks 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." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time
since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton N ational Security Adviser, Feb
18,1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
US Constitution and laws, 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." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by
Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D - MA), and
others Oct. 9,1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engage! d 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." - Rep. Nancy
Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton
Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"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 lic! it missile program to develop longer-range
missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter
to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,
December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D,
MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"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." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA),
Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert
Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 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." - Sen. John F. Kerry
(D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

"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."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10,
2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity.
This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 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.. 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."
-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to
his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction .. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

 

[Eric]

This was triathletic activity of impressive coordination and
> without even transistions. ]
And think of what the man did for cigar sales!!!