9:10 Got back late from bowling but am going to take another whack at a blog. This has been perceived as Darth Vader vs. Luke. Let’s remember that the first toe-to-toe in that battle went to Vader.
9:13 Nice that Cheney says that Osama is such a priority, considering Bush said that Osama is no longer a priority.
9:17 Edwards should really be emphasing that the “global test” is a philosophy dating back thousands of years, rather than acting defensively against Cheney’s charges of Kerry being weak on defense.
9:21 The hope was that Cheney would come across as cranky, irritable and old. Not happening so far. Thus far it’s still terrorism 24/7. But now Cheney is trying to back off and avoid repeating the more incendiary things he’s said, such as that we’re more likely to be attacked if Kerry’s in charge. Let’s see if Edwards nails him on that.
9:23 Edwards is still spending too much time defending Kerry rather than attacking Cheney. Ah, okay, now he’s talking about Cheney cutting weapons systems. Still, I wish that Edwards would make a mention comparing Cheney’s draft dodging versus Kerry’s service if we’re going to talk about track records.
9:28 Edwards is answering the question of how we’re going to get other countries to join in the reconstruction.
9:33 Thus far Edwards and Cheney are spending most of their time calling each other liars, which gets kind of tiresome. They’re both flinging around facts and figures that, I strongly suspect, are both wrong. It’d be nice if one of them could present an absolute slam dunk lie that would leave the other sputtering.
9:38 Cheney’s continuing to present himself carefully and well. Clearly he’s trying to avoid the gaffes, the impatience and profanity that’s gotten him press before.
9:39 Edwards should be doing this more and more: Hit on Cheney’s background with Halliburton.
9:41 This is in Edwards wheelhouse. The attorney slamming at an overinflated and dubious corporation.
9:43 It’ll be interesting to see if Cheney defends the Saudis.
9:45 Let’s see if Edwards has a comeback for the “Senator Gone” thing.
9:46 No, not really. He spent his time attacking Cheney’s voting record. On the one hand it was smart to be aggressive; on the other hand, it leaves Cheney’s charges unanswered.
9:49 Nice way that Edwards very offhandedly pointed out that Cheney hadn’t really answered the question about Cleveland.
9:50 Unfortunately Edwards isn’t really answering the question vis a vis Cleveland. Impressively, he actaully did a worse job answering it than Cheney.
9:57 No, freedom for everyone is not unrelated to the subject of gay marriage. Freedom means freedom.
9:58 This is the most bloodless political debate I’ve ever seen. It’s almost as if everyone’s TOO calm. The talk comes across as sharp, but there’s no passion.
10:00 Edwards is trying to walk an extremely fine line. I’m willing to bet that both Kerry and Edwards do believe in a right to gay marriage, but if they come out and say that, they risk offending…what? Seventy percent of the people? Still, I wish they had the guts to come out and say, Yeah, we support it, that’s one of the reasons we’re different from the GOP, we really believe government shouldn’t be telling people what they can’t do if they’re not hurting anybody.
10:02 This one is right in Edward’s wheelhouse as he answers the question about medical liability suits. His idea about holding lawyers responsible for frivilous lawsuits is extremely good. Definitely an Edwards win on this one.
10:08 Cheney turned the charge about increasing medicare back on Edwards with the comment about the 1997 law causing it (presuming that’s accurate…and since Edwards didn’t really have a comeback for it, I’m going to have to assume it was.)
10:11 Watching Cheney thus far compared to watching Bush during his debate should pretty much verify, once and for all, who is actually running the country.
10:15 I think it’d be cool if Edwards said, “I don’t have a long resume like Cheney’s. On the other hand, at least my resume doesn’t have me shaking hands with Saddam.”
10:22 Anyone notice that Edwards looks like he’s holding the buzzer to answer a “Jeopardy!” question?
10:18 I still have trouble not giggling considering George Bush as “commander in chief.” I keep thinking of him leaping into action on 9/11 in the Florida classroom. Watching Cheney, I can again see why Bush was able to sit around while Cheney leaped into action.
10:21 “The best defense is a good offensive.” Wow! I’ve never heard that before! What an original thought!
10:25 Cheney is making no effort to defend Bush’s flipflops. Let’s see if he does or if he just keeps attacking Kerry.
10:27 Cheney pretty much blew that question.
10:29 I suspect Texas democrats would have something to say about Bush allegedly having “reached across the aisle” in Texas to Democrats. I susp
10:30 Yes, exactly. Cheney saying he has no idea why America is so divided is just being disingenuous. Bush has consisted appealed to the most extreme factions of this country; how can he possibly wonder why such catering to right wing extremism and neocon philosophies could possibly splinter him from the rest of the electorate?
10:35 Good closing speech by Edwards.
10:36 Cheney plays the fear card. Naturally. Edwards speaks of hope; Cheney speaks of fear.
This one is much tougher to call. Edwards more often than not held his own, but Cheney simply came across as the more experienced statesman, even though I wouldn’t trust him further than I can throw him. Those who were hoping to see youthful exuberance triumph cleanly over a cranky elder were disappointed. As before, “winner” vs. “Loser” is still a fool’s game to call, but I think Cheney is going to benefit far more from this go-around than Edwards.
PAD
• 
Hm. I think a charge CAN be made that Cheney and the Administration is overly soft on Enron (internal transcripts have shown management admitting manipulation of the California energy market, yet the pertinent federal authority has been been either very reluctant to prosecute such shenanigans or are enforcing the contracts that resulted in such manipulations).
On the matter of WMDs, I know the press today is focusing on the fact that the inspector did not find and does not expect to find stockpiles of WMD’s. But read farther. They found clear evidence that Saddam had developed the structures to produce WMD’s. My question to Kerry (and his supporters) is this: How long do you wait to take action? Saddam had been under sanctions for over a decade, and he still was pursuing nuclear materials and WMD’s. He was hindred, but he basically had everything ready to go the first time we blinked. Do you wait until he has actually made them? And don’t wast my time with pointless arguments about other countries developing WMD’s. Iraq is the one country in this generation that used WMD’s, invaded a neighbor, and was guilty of large scale massacres.
Here is a British version of the same story. Notice how the tone is markedly different from CNN, ABC, cBS, etc.
Saddam threat ‘greater than feared’ Oct 6 2004
A key report on Saddam Hussein’s weapons shows he was an even greater threat than previously thought, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has said.
The group hunting for the dictator’s weapons of mass destruction is expected to announce it has found no evidence of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
But Mr Straw said the Iraq Survey Group report proves “in terms of his intention”, Saddam was an “even starker” threat than thought.
Mr Straw said Saddam would have built up WMDs if he had not been ousted from power.
Speaking on a trip to Baghdad, he said: “I personally am in no doubt whatever that had we walked away from Iraq and left Iraq to Saddam, Saddam would have indeed built up his capabilities, built up his strength and posed an even greater threat to the people of Iraq and the people of the region than before.”
The head of the ISG, Charles Duelfer, will set out his findings in his final report to the US Senate tonight.
He is expected to say Saddam did not have WMD at the time of the US-led invasion.
The failure to find WMD will be particularly damaging to the Prime Minister because of his reliance on them as the justification for going to war.
He has already accepted that intelligence suggesting Saddam had WMD was wrong, and he has taken full responsibility for any mistakes in British intelligence.
http://icberkshire.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/nationalnews/tm_objectid=14725679&method=full&siteid=50102&headline=saddam-threat–greater-than-feared–name_page.html
Jim in Iowa
Jim,
Certainly, it’d make no sense to wait until someone had the nuclear capability to kills millions. I would suggest, and did at the time to anyone locally who’d listen to my rants, that it would have been beneficial to confirm said weapons, not the desire to have them, and get some support before going in to war virtually alone based on very tentative information that had been presented as tentative.
Bush was in northeastern PA today and countered the opponent’s point of going to war without global support by saying that we had “Britain and Poland” with us and that “they were not coerced” into it. Immediate affirmation came to mind that the vast majority had to make the choice….. U.S. or Iraq. I’ve no doubt that they were told so too.
oops, another governmental report came out today stating a finding of Iraq not having had a Nuclear development in place since 1992.
I heard it on NPR, but here’s a link to an online source:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3598318&thesection=news&thesubsection=world&thesecondsubsection=&reportID=562588
While I thought Kerry won the first presidential debate, Cheney handily smacked around Edwards during the VP debate. I was extremely surprised to see Edwards flushed and rattled several times — I did not expect a successful trial lawyer like him to have such weak armor.
Note to Kerry partisans: Be prepared for a much stronger showing by Bush on Friday. I watched Bush’s Pittsburgh speech this morning, and it absolutely kicked butt. He was relaxed and in fine form — and very presidential.
This election is definitely going down to the wire.
R.:
>Note to Kerry partisans: Be prepared for a much stronger showing by Bush on Friday. I watched Bush’s Pittsburgh speech this morning, and it absolutely kicked butt. He was relaxed and in fine form — and very presidential.
Guess we’ll see. Bush is always relaxed when he isn’t being criticized. When he gets feedback, whether it be from a reporter, political opponent, etc., is when we see him react.
I wrote: “I watched Bush’s Pittsburgh speech this morning…”
I meant Pennsylvania speech — sorry!
oops, another governmental report came out today stating a finding of Iraq not having had a Nuclear development in place since 1992.
As is often the case, the rest of the article is ignored. The article you posted states, and I quote:
Iraq’s nuclear weapons programme had deteriorated since the 1991 Gulf War, but Saddam did not abandon his nuclear ambitions, he said.
Bush never said Saddam had nuclear weapons, but that Saddam was intent on gaining some.
It is true that sanctions seemed to truly set Saddam back in the area of nuclear weapons. However, the same article says the following:
By the time of the US-led invasion in 2003, Iraq would have been able to produce mustard agent in months and nerve agent in less than a year, he said.
Saddam clearly had an active weapons program. In the area of chemical weapons, it was still moving forward, not backwards.
Another article also noted that Saddam had gone foward with developing key components for a missle, with the clear hope and plan that he would have chemical and/or nuclear warheads to put in them. You don’t spend millions of dollars on a missle program for nothing.
WMD’s were never the sole reason for invading Iraq. The fact that they are not there is troubling in that it reflects an enormous problem with our intelligence services. But the war was conducted on more than finding stockpiles of WMDs.
Jim in Iowa
Clarification: The follwoing sentence is my comments, not a quote from the article; the bold should have only been for the word “never” :
Bush never said Saddam had nuclear weapons, but that Saddam was intent on gaining some.
Jim in Iowa
Jim:
>>oops, another governmental report came out today stating a finding of Iraq not having had a Nuclear development in place since 1992.
>As is often the case, the rest of the article is ignored. The article you posted states, and I quote:
>Iraq’s nuclear weapons programme had deteriorated since the 1991 Gulf War, but Saddam did not abandon his nuclear ambitions, he said.
Jim, there’s a helluva difference between possession and intent to possess.
Fred,
And you don’t see a difference between “intent to possess” and “will possess within a few months time without outside intervention”?
Gorginfoogle:
>And you don’t see a difference between “intent to possess” and “will possess within a few months time without outside intervention”?
I certainly do, although outside intervention need not take the form of an ill-conceived war.
Yes, yes, all these comments are well and good, but will no one mention the most shocking thing from last night? You know what I mean.
The ending of NIP/TUCK? I mean, JesusTapDancingChrist, what the hëll was that? I thought the reveal of Ava Moore’s secret was impressive, but those last five minutes . . . OMFG.
🙂
And you don’t see a difference between “intent to possess” and “will possess within a few months time without outside intervention”?
Pressure was on Saddam for more than 10 years. Does anybody honestly think that we would’ve backed off him at any time?
Like I’ve said, we had him contained – there were no nukes, no WMD, no projects in progress.
Not a dámņ thing to justify this world when there are greater and more immediate threats out there.
Anybody can claim that he had designs for it. That much is pretty obvious. But he wasn’t the immediate threat Bush made him out to be. Why can’t the rest of you admit that?
And thus the problem here still remains the whole “preemptive” nature of what Bush wants to do. This isn’t Minority Report here – where we can get away with trying to predict who is going to do what.
But that’s what Bush wants to do. He wants to look like he’s reading minds, and then, in the face of all contrary evidence, he refuses to back down when he’s wrong.
No, all Bush has done is prevent us from going after the bigger and more immediate threats because now we’re stuck to being committed in Iraq.
Thank you George “I’m a dûmbášš” Bush.
*Well, vote Republican and you’ll have both!*
Welp, better then a would-be Frenchman that will go to the UN for his lunch money or goober that made his money off the backs of spurious law-suits.
*Well, let’s see….. Vader was a ruthless murderer who ultimately lost his battle and his empire to the rebels, while Pyle is a good-hearted, empathetic goof whose persistance and genuine concern for others always paid off and influenced everyone he interacted with in the end. Although both are extremes, I’d never cast a vote for a Vader.*
God, that’s funny, you’d send a born-again every 5 minutes sucker that only through bad TV-writing got out of jams his naivity put him in. And in my book, if Vader had been in real life, the Taliban would have been all liquidated in about one day. You need to fight fire with fire, not good thoughts, lollipops and health care. What a bunch of bullsh*t…
“The ending of NIP/TUCK? I mean, JesusTapDancingChrist, what the hëll was that? I thought the reveal of Ava Moore’s secret was impressive, but those last five minutes . . . OMFG.”
I have a favor to ask. We watched Smallville and taped Lost. When we watched Lost we got to the end, where evrybody was getting along, sharing stuff, acting nice, lost puppies were being returned, I think the Byrds were playing “Come Together” in the background, and we all leaned in close because it was obvious that Something Truly Awful was about to happen. We starting making predictions–a shark was going to do a Samual L Jackson number on the pregnent girl, the reanimated corpse of the dead cop was going to suddenly open its eyes, the Harlem Globetrotters were going to show up–and then the tape ran out.
help. please.
Carl:
>God, that’s funny, you’d send a born-again every 5 minutes sucker that only through bad TV-writing got out of jams his naivity put him in.
No, I implied that I WOULDN’T vote for Bush.
“And you don’t see a difference between “intent to possess” and “will possess within a few months time without outside intervention”?”
So when are we going after Korea that already possesses nukes? What about Russia?
I want a nuke to0, does that mean George Adolf Bush is gonna launch an offensive invasion of me?
**God, that’s funny, you’d send a born-again every 5 minutes sucker that only through bad TV-writing got out of jams his naivity put him in. And in my book, if Vader had been in real life, the Taliban would have been all liquidated in about one day. You need to fight fire with fire, not good thoughts, lollipops and health care. What a bunch of bullsh*t…***
Ahhh… so the ENDS do justify the Means… my bad… I guess I was told wrong.
Travis
Actually, Vader wouldn’t have wiped out the Taliban that fast. Think of Vader as the big Governemnt, say, the U.S.A. and the Taliban and it’s network of terrorists as the Rebels. We’ve all seen how that turns out.
Vader starts as Anikin and the Palpatine claiming they’re implementing measures to protect everyone’s security and safety, but slowly they’re creeping in and taking control of everything and opressing the citizens…
And we all know by now how Episodes 4-6 show who won, the Rebels or the Empire….
I have a favor to ask. We watched Smallville and taped Lost. When we watched Lost we got to the end, where evrybody was getting along, sharing stuff, acting nice, lost puppies were being returned, I think the Byrds were playing “Come Together” in the background, and we all leaned in close because it was obvious that Something Truly Awful was about to happen. We starting making predictions–a shark was going to do a Samual L Jackson number on the pregnent girl, the reanimated corpse of the dead cop was going to suddenly open its eyes, the Harlem Globetrotters were going to show up–and then the tape ran out.
Actually, last night’s episode just ended like it did once before, with the guy who used to be on Alias sitting on the beach. He was watching the father and son with the dog. He had a grin on his face, but it almost looked calculated and like he knew something they did not.
Now the previews for next week show them running out of food and having to hunt. The big, bad, whatever it is appears to be chasing down the grinning man as he stares in awe of the big bad. Of course, the way they do clips for next week, who knows what will really happen.
Jim in Iowa
**the guy who used to be on Alias **
Terry O’Quinn. He was Peter Watts in Millenium, an FBI Agent in the X-Files movie, Howard Hughes in the Rocketeer, and has a lot of other stuff to his name, also.
Travis
Anybody can claim that he had designs for it. That much is pretty obvious. But he wasn’t the immediate threat Bush made him out to be. Why can’t the rest of you admit that?
Ok, I will bite. Why can’t I admit it? Because it is a matter of perspective. I fully agree that are intelligence was bad. Either he had the weapons and snuck them out of the country (and our intelligence failed to see where he took them), or he destroyed them in 1991 (and our intelligence failed to know this). He did not have WMD’s ready to hand over to anyone.
What this report and admissions from Saddam also shows is that Saddam never quit pursuing these goals. In terms of nuclear WMD’s, he was a long ways off. We never claimed he had nuclear WMD’s, just that he was pursuing them. While he was farther behind than we knew, his intent was clearly there. And while the aluminum tubes may well have not been for nuclear purposes, everyone forgets that Saddam actually was trying to buy that yellow cake stuff in Africa.
In terms of chemical warfare (which seem to be the easiest WMD’s to make), Saddam had substantially rebuilt. As other articles make clear, it is a very short process to change a pesticide plant into a chemical weapons plant. Saddam had way too many pesticide plants and vast quantities of it stored at military bases for it to be anything other than to be converted into chemical weapons at the first opportunity. There is not only intent, there is hard evidence he had restored his ability, he just had not begun to stockpile the finished product.
Back to your point: We obviously disagree about the meaning of “immediate threat.” It is important to note that Bush never used the word “immediate.” He used terms like “gathering” to say it was headed in that direction, not that it was immediate. But if we attack, then obviously we feel the threat demands “immediate” attention, so why did Bush (and I agreed) fell this was true?
Someone posted that Saddam was contained and that we were not going to let up on the sanctions. That statement is such a joke. We, the USA, were not going to let up (at least not with Bush in office). But the same report that came out yesterday that said there were no stockpiles of WMDs also clearly said that many nations, especially China, Russia, and France, had been violating those very sanctions. We may not have let up, but key “allies” in the rest of the world already had.
What does this mean? Saddam really had little to fear and no pressure to actually change in his direction. He could get all of the ingredients out to make his cake, knowing that he would very shortly be able to start baking again. Saddam did not have to spend the next decade to rebuild. He already had done so stealing the oil for food money that should have gone to his people.
So why did we have to act “immediately”? I will give three reasons.
1.) Waiting would have done nothing to have changed Saddam, and it would only have given him more time to get ready for when the sanctions were lifted or for when the world quit paying attention. Waiting longer would only have demonstrated we did not mean what we said and that he could do as he pleased.
2.) Waiting with the sanctions in place did NOT help us in the eyes of the Arab world. They knew of the thousands who died from lack of food, medicine, etc., in Iraq. They blamed the western world, especially, the USA, for the sanctions, not Saddam for stealing the money from the oil for food program. There were Arabs joining terrorist groups before we ever invaded, and that number was growing. By acting, we created the possibility of ending the stand off, elminiating the human rights abuses, and creating a free Iraq. Contrary to what many say here, that was a stated reason for the war beyond the issue of WMDs.
3.) September 11 changed everything. I know that has been overused, but it is nonetheless true. Here is how it changed things: We can no longer wait for what we used to call an “immediate” threat when it comes to terrorists. September 11 was not planned in 2 months. It took years to put in place. At what point do you act to stop it? It is absurd, in my opinion, to wait until a week or a month before they strike. You end the threat at the earliest opportunity.
Here is where I know many of you do not understand or agree with Bush’s logic. Bush and Cheney do not believe Saddam was behind September 11. What they did believe (as Cheney said in the debate) was that Saddam would be an obvious and easy place for terrorists to get WMDs. While we now know that Saddam no longer has stockpiles of WMDs, we did not know it at the time we went to war. Not to excuse our intelligence, but part of the reason we did not know was because Saddam wanted Israel and Iran to believe he still had WMDs so he refused to show anyone what he actually did or did not have. He was bluffing, and he was going to continue to bluff. We tried to call his bluff. I know some of you wish we had given more time to the inspectors. What you forget is that Saddam had an agenda. He did not want to admit he no longer had stockpiles and so I think we could have inspected for the next 10 years and never been sure of what he had.
This is a crucial point: Saddam could have prevented our invasion. If Saddam had truly allowed the inspectors freedom to look, he could have averted the whole war. That does not excuse our bad intelligence, but it is wrong to say Bush went in knowing the intelligence was wrong.
Bottom line, why was Saddam a threat that we had to act on now and not later? Because he was a caged and hungry lion just waiting to get out and the bars on the cage were beginning to bend. Because it takes a long time to gear up to war, especially when you learn Saddam could have begun manufacturing mustard gas within a few months. Saddam did not have a gun to our heads. In fact, it is very possible that Saddam himself would never have held a gun to our heads. But there is no doubt in my mind that if a terrorist (such as Al Qaeda) were to say they would use a chemical WMD on Israel, he would have given it to them in a heartbeat and not cared if they also used it on us.
Saddam was a real, active threat, constantly working to escape his cage. We were correct to take action now and not wait until the WMD’s were manufactured and on their way here.
Jim in Iowa
I hate bold and italics. I seem to regularly fail to turn them off, and preview doesn’t work. Sorry if it made my previous post harder to read.
Jim in Iowa
Jim:
>In terms of chemical warfare (which seem to be the easiest WMD’s to make), Saddam had substantially rebuilt. As other articles make clear, it is a very short process to change a pesticide plant into a chemical weapons plant. Saddam had way too many pesticide plants and vast quantities of it stored at military bases for it to be anything other than to be converted into chemical weapons at the first opportunity. There is not only intent, there is hard evidence he had restored his ability, he just had not begun to stockpile the finished product.
According to Charles Duelfer, the top U.S. Arms Inspector, Bagdad destroyed its hidden chemical weapons stockpile in 1991 and there had been no indications that production resumed afterward.
Someone posted that Saddam was contained and that we were not going to let up on the sanctions. That statement is such a joke.
I have made that statement and it is hardly a joke.
You must have read another report, because the report says that Saddam wasn’t in any process of building new WMD’s.
2.) Waiting with the sanctions in place did NOT help us in the eyes of the Arab world.
And invading Iraq has? Are we living on different planets!?
Bush just doens’t give a dámņ what the rest of the world thinks. All that goodwill after 9/11, flushed down the šhìŧŧër.
Something to be proud of, eh?
Available information indicates that Saddam himself was indeed pursuing a number of weapons programs, from disease bombs to nukes.
However, he was using available funding to build palaces and statues. Apparently, his scientific staff were lying to him on a daily basis about the wonderful progress they were making, as they seemed to prefer falsehoods to having generators connected to their genetalia (a standpoint with which I happen to agree, not that they’d care…).
In other words, there were not WMD programs ongoing in Iraq before we invaded. There were a bunch of scientists who claimed to the ignorant peasants watching over them that they were building weapons, but in fact they were only saving their own skins.
That, apparently, is why we invaded – because Dubya was as gullible as Saddam, when it came to what he wanted to believe…
Jim wrote:
“Saddam was a real, active threat, constantly working to escape his cage. We were correct to take action now and not wait until the WMD’s were manufactured and on their way here.”
I think you are absolutely right, Jim. All this 20-20 hindsight stuff is election year BS, and all the folks who are coming out of the woodwork now, puffing up their chests, pointing fingers and saying, “I told you so,” are full of hot air.
The fact of the matter is, almost all Democrats and Republicans thought Saddam had this stuff two years ago, including Kerry and Bush. So did the world leaders and intelligence agencies of every country that had any respectable intelligence infrastructure. Even the cherry on top of this whole sordid WMD sundae, former CIA Director George Tenet, said the case for WMD in Iraq was a “slam dunk.”
Virtually ALL experts were wrong about Iraq’s WMDs to varying degrees, and regardless of WHO was sitting in the White House, the intel on Iraq would have been dead wrong about WMDs. Which means, if ANY crisis would have popped up for ANY president regarding Iraq, the advice and counsel from the intelligence community would have led whoever sat in the Oval Office astray. THAT’S the REAL problem here.
R:
>I think you are absolutely right, Jim. All this 20-20 hindsight stuff is election year BS, and all the folks who are coming out of the woodwork now, puffing up their chests, pointing fingers and saying, “I told you so,” are full of hot air.
Not completely. There were plenty of people watching this going down, getting info from both national and international news agencies and saying, “Hey, let’s make sure that this intell is right before we go in like stormtroopers”, especially when it leaked early on that the intell was shaky.
>The fact of the matter is, almost all Democrats and Republicans thought Saddam had this stuff two years ago, including Kerry and Bush. So did the world leaders and intelligence agencies of every country that had any respectable intelligence infrastructure. Even the cherry on top of this whole sordid WMD sundae, former CIA Director George Tenet, said the case for WMD in Iraq was a “slam dunk.”
Tenet was playing to his audience, IMO. Both the weapons issue and the Hussein/bin Laden connection had been questioned by critics and ignored. This seemed especially suspect after hearing a publicly released audio of bin Laden condemning Hussein as an ally of the west and not a true Muslim. Doesn’t sound like an ally to me.
>Virtually ALL experts were wrong about Iraq’s WMDs to varying degrees, and regardless of WHO was sitting in the White House, the intel on Iraq would have been dead wrong about WMDs. Which means, if ANY crisis would have popped up for ANY president regarding Iraq, the advice and counsel from the intelligence community would have led whoever sat in the Oval Office astray. THAT’S the REAL problem here.
I disagree. The real problem here is that there wasn’t any crisis popping up. Bush got impatient, saw an opportunity and took the initiative on his own. The guy had a plan in place for invsion of Iraq before 911 even happened.
Remember, we are talking about a man who has yet to be able to identify a mistake… any mistake.
(One sticky point for war critics to grasp and deal with: The report is clear Hussein would have resumed making weapons if the U.N. had ended inspections and sanctions.)
A detailed report in last Sunday’s New York Times makes a strong case that Cheney’s erroneous assertions about Hussein’s nuclear program hinged on the theories of one junior CIA analyst. The analyst’s claims were dismissed by a majority of the U.S. government’s experts, but Cheney’s rhetoric exalted them into “proof.”
This was from an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer. Bolding was me.
You must have read another report, because the report says that Saddam wasn’t in any process of building new WMD’s.
Your statement is incomplete. Saddam had not actually produced actual chemical WMD’s. However, he had very clearly put all of the systems in place that in a *VERY* short amount of time he could have indeed resumed production of chemical WMD’s. The report is quite clear on this fact. Why is this so hard to grasp? For Saddam to be ready to produce mustard gas in just a few months time, that is an immediate threat. More importantly, it demonstrates a clear intention to continue to violate the UN resolutions. Where do you think he would stop?
If a known drug dealer is put under house arrest, and he assembles all of the components to set up a meth lab, but just hasn’t actually begun producing the drug, it would be clear what his intentions were and that he had violated his parole. In fact, it would be clear that he remained a very active problem. Do you want to sit there and “baby-sit” him for the rest of his life? Do you secretly hope that he does not set up a lab in the back of his closet (metaphorically speaking) and begin producing the drugs?
The unwillingness to understand the nature of Saddam Hussein blows my mind.
2.) Waiting with the sanctions in place did NOT help us in the eyes of the Arab world.
And invading Iraq has? Are we living on different planets!?
You miss the point. Either way, we were looking bad in the eyes of the Arab world. Either way, you have some Arabs becoming terrorists. If we did not invade, that condition would have dragged on for years. Exacltly how long would we have kept up the sanctions? Another 10 years of the Arab world hearing of the starving kids in Iraq because of the evil US sanctions would have been extremely damaging. What is worse, other countries were violating the sanctions, so Saddam still was using the money for both WMD development and for building his own palaces. Should we just sit around and say it is not our problem as another 20,000 or 30,000 or 50,000 kids die from lack of food and medicine because of the agenda of one man? The lack of condemnation for Saddam by many of you on this site is astonishing. Love or hate the war, love or hate George Bush, he is *NOTHING* like the man we removed in Iraq.
Yes, invading has resulted in some Arabs joining with the terrorists. But if we suceed in Iraq, it will be a short term problem. If we set up a free Iraq and get out, then a whole new dynamic will begin. Things at least have the strong possibility of getting better.
It is a horrible thing to go to war. It is tragic that many in Iraq have died (whatever country they are from). But unless we are prevented from truly winning the peace and establishing a free Iraq, it is certain that we will save far more people than will have died in this conflict.
This was the right war at the right time. It has not been perfect. There are many things in hindsight we could have done better — but that is true in anything. If Bush is allowed to finish what he has started (or, for that matter, if Kerry will truly finish what we started if he is elected and if he will stick to it in spite of it being hard), then a new era will begin in the middle east.
Jim in Iowa
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=041007&cat=news&st=newsd85iph900&src=ap
Even Bush is conceding that there were no WMDs before we invaded.
Of course, he still won’t admit he made a mistake, but I guess it’s progress.
A quote from Den’s article:
>”America is safer today with Saddam Hussein in prison,” Bush said in a surprise statement to reporters as he prepared to fly to Wisconsin.
How in God’s name can this in any way be termed “a surprise statement”? This is the only thing we’ve been hearing him repeat for the past year and a half.
Of course, he still won’t admit he made a mistake, but I guess it’s progress.
For just a moment, let’s try to remove the “Bush factor” from this equation. Let’s say President X has made a decision. In hindsight, some aspects of why were wrong, but in the bigger picture, he does still think the direction he went is right. In addition, he has made adjustments in how he moves forward with his direction.
President X knows, however, that this is a campaign year. To even admit he sneezed at the wrong time is to hand live ammo to his opponents. So will he “admit” that there were some mistakes made? Probably not. That would be political suicide. The real question is not simply will he admit he made a mistake. The real question is what will he do next time.
Neither candidate has been very willing to admit a mistake. Kerry has made his share, and he is quite good and “nuancing” why he was right. Bush does the same, though admittedly in a blunter way.
Which leads us back to reality. Are there aspects of the war that should have been done differently? Of course. In the big picture, looking at all the factors, should we have gone to war? I think so, and I think Bush does as well. It is right — and patriotic — to disagree if you genuinely believe differently. My hope, though, is that sentiment is based less on a hatred for Bush and more on a desire for what is best for this country. I assume later is true, but the rhetoric makes it hard to know at times.
Clinton never has come completely clean about the Monica affair. Whether you agree about its importance or not, the fact is, even while out of office, he has not really done so.
Yes, invading a country is different in some important ways, but the practice is the same. Presidents generally are not going to get “vulnerable” and admit all of their mistakes. That does not necessarily mean they are stupid or stubborn. It can simply mean they know politics and that any admissions of an error, no matter how small, will be used as a political football by the other party.
I have a very simple question: Do you honestly believe Bush will invade another country if he is re-elected? Short of a major change that we cannot forsee, I strongly doubt it. Iraq was a unique set of circumstances, whatever motives you assign to Bush for invading it. I think they were honest and good motives. Even if I am wrong and Michael Moore is right, there is no other country that Bush would invade like he has Iraq.
Jim in Iowa
Jim:
>I have a very simple question: Do you honestly believe Bush will invade another country if he is re-elected? Short of a major change that we cannot forsee, I strongly doubt it. Iraq was a unique set of circumstances, whatever motives you assign to Bush for invading it. I think they were honest and good motives. Even if I am wrong and Michael Moore is right, there is no other country that Bush would invade like he has Iraq.
I don’t think Bush would do it for 2 reasons:
1) Our country no longer has the resources to have the choice to initiate a war, necessary or not, with another country.
2) I don’t think that his cabinent would let him. Cheney would have to have his fingers pried away from his neck. 😉
Honestly, I simply haven’t seen anything nearing a learning curve with the current president. It may seem harsh and I honestly don’t mean it to be anything more than a statement of observation that adds to my complete lack of trust in the man and his abilities to effectively and productively lead this country.
Fred
Fred wrote:
“I disagree. The real problem here is that there wasn’t any crisis popping up. Bush got impatient, saw an opportunity and took the initiative on his own. The guy had a plan in place for invsion of Iraq before 911 even happened.”
That wasn’t my point. Let’s pretend Al Gore was sitting in the Oval Office these past four years and Saddam was still in power. And let’s also pretend that Saddam suddenly got a wild hair one day (not at all far-fetched) and decided to lob a few scuds at Israel, Turkey or even Kuwait. Al’s suddenly got a crisis on his hands and needs intel to decide what course of action to take, and how fast to take it. Well, lo and behold! He gets handed the same ambiguous and incorrect WMD intel Bush was handed. Does he ignore it all and use his ESP to settle on a correct course of action? Nah! He blunders into a big mess as well.
Like I said a loooong time ago, when it comes to decisions made based on intel, it’s ALWAYS going to be garbage in; garbage out. Intel assessments tend to hedge with lots of mights, coulds and maybes (after all, you can’t blame anyone for being wrong if an analysis isn’t definitive in the first place), which is why I was very surprised that Tenet went out on a limb with his “slam dunk” comment.
Some here have said Bush “pressured” Tenet into that response, but put yourself in Bush’s position. Here he’s got an intel machine that has cost billions to build and sustain, and no one wants to be definitive about any information they provide. Wouldn’t any of us, at some point, finally say in exasperation, “Listen, I want a straight answer on this. Do the Iraquis have this WMD stuff or not?”
And THAT’S the problem that needs fixing, regardless of WHO gets elected in November.
Everyone was saying the VP debates were boring, but I actually thought they were more interesting than the presidential ones, and were more flattering to both Cheney and Edwards.
I really hate politics. Here are your choices..
1.) No foreign policy at least not any that wouldn
No WMD’s,No ties to Al Queda,no imminent threat….Why did we invade again????Please dont sell me that he had intent or desire to have the weapons as the answer.I mean we have shown we have MOAB’s and intentions on DaisyCutter bombs so other countries seeing us as having the intent to attack or build more can stage a preemptive strike right??Jeez stopping drinking the Kool aid
and think beyond what this administration is trying to feed us.
Oh now there is a TERROR THREAT to our Schools ,with unconfirmed information about an actual threat that might take place ,maybe ,
BOOGA ,BOOGA THE TERRORISTS ARE GONNA GET YA!!!!!!
BTW NIP/TUCK Finale:…..Holy F***ing S***!!!!!
She’s a man BABY!!!!!!The whole ending sequence..
WHOAH!:0 .That hit me like a bat upside the head.
Is the show coming back next season??I like Christian’s character ,I gotta know what happens!!!
It is comments like this that defy logic:
Oh now there is a TERROR THREAT to our Schools ,with unconfirmed information about an actual threat that might take place ,maybe ,
BOOGA ,BOOGA THE TERRORISTS ARE GONNA GET YA!!!!!!
The Bush administration did not raise the terror alert level. They did not rush out with fear tactics. They have simply stated what is obvious to anyone who watched events in Russia: It is possible terrorists could try the same thing here. The stories make clear that this has been an ongoing process that began a few weeks ago when the attack happened in Russia.
It would be criminally irresponsible for the government to not have taken these steps. If they did nothing, and an attack happened, there would be an understandable anger at the lack of thinking ahead.
I can accept idealogic differences of opinion. But to make comments like this is a gross over reaction to what happened today. It is uncalled for and irresponsible.
Jim in Iowa
Nope, just another example of Bush Administration fear-mongering at election time.
As Jim mentioned, everyone recoognizes the possibilities for school after Russia, not to mention Columbine (and a recent local scare here in the Metro Detroit area).
“Vote for anyone but Bish and the terrorists will get you!!!”
Oh please, Jim .In no way am i making light of the possibilty of children of being attacked.Any one in their right mind should already be taking
steps to insure the safety of our children going to school.Living in the philadelphia area I well aware of the dangers our children face everyday.
Bladestar obviously got the point .
Its just more fearmongering plain and simple.
Quite frankly ,you should spare yourself for when I say TRULY say something uncalled for.
“There is an assumption that Cheney is evil and that he would willingly and deliberately send people to their death to simply increase his and his friends wallets. On what basis is this made?“
He’s a politician. By definition, that makes him an amoral liar who would butcher his granny for an extra vote.
“Oh now there is a TERROR THREAT to our Schools ,with unconfirmed information about an actual threat that might take place ,maybe ,
BOOGA ,BOOGA THE TERRORISTS ARE GONNA GET YA!!!!!!”
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/US/schools_threat_041007-1.html
From the story…
“A man described as an Iraqi insurgent involved in anti-coalition activities had downloaded school floor plans and safety and security information about elementary and high schools in the six states, according to officials.
School officials in Fort Myers, Fla.; Salem, Ore.; Gray, Ga.; Birch Run, Mich.; two towns in New Jersey; and two towns in California have been told to increase security in light of the discovery.”
So much for unconfirmed.
And WHO described him as an Iraqi Insurgent? Gladys Kravitz?
We have more to fear from the “Trench Coat Mafia” and troubled kids in schools than terrorists.
Besides, if they want to really hurt/scare Americans, they’;d be hitting the shopping malls and shopping centers.
No, schools would be the worst for fear – at least if several were done randomly at once. People drop their kids off at schools assuming they will be safely educated. If malls were bombed, people would just shop on Amazon more. If schools were bombed, they’d either have to be fearful every day they dropped their kids off, or quit their jobs to homeschool.
They don’t even have to actually carry anything out to disrupt and cause fear. Look at what the ABCNews report has stirred up, even though NOTHING has actually happened or any proof of anything planned.
America, land of the sheep. Hopefully the people will wake up and see how many times GWB’s crack(-smoking) team has cried “WOLF!…er, I mean TERRORIST!” so often…
My school had a bomb threat last thursday. We herded all 2600 students (plus 100+ faculty) into the stadium and waited. And waited. Hours went by. it was about 5 or 6 hours later before they brought any water out. Turns out the bomb sniffing dogs got excited over a backpack of what turned out to be innocent kid stuff–between the scented highlighters, nail polish, and Splitz-B-Gone hair spray with Added Papaya Extract, I guess it all added up into something that reminded the hounds of plastique.
Meanwhile, I’m thinking how I’ll bet nobody ever checked for bombs under the bleachers. The last thing that would have passed through my mind, other than chunks of bleacher, would be how I never wanted to have the word “ironic” show up in my obit.
The local paper suggested that whoever called in the fake bomb threat should have to clean the bathrooms with a toothbrush. Yeah, THAT’LL show him!
Yes, invading has resulted in some Arabs joining with the terrorists.
Wow, what a way to downplay the sitaution.
It’s done far more than that, but you probably missed that as well.
“I think you are absolutely right, Jim. All this 20-20 hindsight stuff is election year BS, and all the folks who are coming out of the woodwork now, puffing up their chests, pointing fingers and saying, “I told you so,” are full of hot air.
The fact of the matter is, almost all Democrats and Republicans thought Saddam had this stuff two years ago, including Kerry and Bush. So did the world leaders and intelligence agencies of every country that had any respectable intelligence infrastructure.”
And yet most every other world leader was willing to wait to let the UN inspectors finish their job. Bush was not. Over a thousand American deaths later, we discovered that if the UN inspectors had been allowed to finish their job, they would have found nothing.
Bush didn’t want to find nothing. Bush wanted to invade. So he used 9/11 to stir the pot, scare people, and he invaded. It’s as simple as that, and all the rest is BS.
PAD