Is Obama done,cooked and baked?

dstark · February 1, 2008, 11:14pm

poetsheart, I don’t drink. :)

mini · February 1, 2008, 11:19pm

The Big Lie of 1998:

Senator Biden:

"An asymmetric capability of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons gives an otherwise weak country the power to intimidate and blackmail. We risk sending a dangerous signal to other would-be proliferators if we do not respond decisively to Iraq’s transgressions. [Congressional Record, 2/12/98].

Senator Lieberman:

"Today, the threat may not be as clear to other nations of the world, but its consequences are even more devastating potentially than the real threat, than the realized pain of the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, because the damage that can be inflicted by Saddam Hussein and Iraq, under his leadership, with weapons of mass destruction is incalculable; it is enormous. . . . " [Congressional Record, 2/12/98].

Senator Levin:

“Mr. President, Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction programs and the means to deliver them are a menace to international peace and security. They pose a threat to Iraq’s neighbors, to U.S. forces in the Gulf region, to the world’s energy supplies, and to the integrity and credibility of the United Nations Security Council. . . . The use of military force may not result in that desired result but it will serve to degrade Saddam Hussein’s ability to develop weapons of mass destruction and to threaten international peace and security. Although not as useful as inspection and destruction, it is still a worthy goal” [Congressional Record, 2/12/98].

Senator Kerry:

"Mr. President, we have every reason to believe that Saddam Hussein will continue to do everything in his power to further develop weapons of mass destruction and the ability to deliver those weapons, and that he will use those weapons without concern or pangs of conscience if ever and whenever his own calculations persuade him it is in his interests to do so. . . . " [Congressional Record, 3/13/98.]

Al Gore:

“There should be no doubt, Saddam’s ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat to the peace of that region and the security of the world. . …” (February 1998)

There wasn’t an iota of evidence that Saddam either was producing, or was prepared to deliver weapons of mass destruction toward the U.S. at any time between 1992-1998. For almost five of those years, inspectors kept on saying the same thing. It was created from whole (Democratic) cloth.

What was different when Clinton/Tenet cooked up the Big Lie is that the first strategy - that of genocide, with a seriously weakened Iraq, a million dead, half of them children (United Nations Resolution #260, Article 2, Section c) - had failed, the negotiations with Chemical Ali had ground to a halt, and the Iraqi military was not going to overthrow Saddam Hussein and invite the U.S. in (which was the goal). The U.S. spies in UNSCOM had been discovered. Several European leaders were planning to take genocide charges to the International Court of Justice. So there needed to be pretext for a military attack, this time specifically aimed at killing Saddam Hussein. That attack did in fact take place in December 1998, after Clinton threw the 125 UNSCOM inspectors out.

dstark · February 1, 2008, 11:22pm

Mini, it’s simple. Did we find weapons in Iraq in 1997?

UNSCOM said we did and destroyed them.

Did UNSCOM lie?

dstark · February 1, 2008, 11:53pm

<a href=“http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/etc/arsenal.html[/url]”>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/etc/arsenal.html</a>

"Bulk CW agents: Iraq said that it produced 3,859 tons of CW agents during the entire implementation of its CW program, and that 3,315 tons of these agents were weaponized. Agents produced in large quantities included mustard, tabun, and sarin.

According to Iraq, 80% of the weaponized CW agents were consumed between 1982 and 1988. In addition, they claim to have unilaterally discarded 130 tons of non-weaponized CW agents during the 1980s. UNSCOM found that these numbers could not be verified.

After the Gulf War, Iraq claimed that it had 412.5 tons of CW agents remaining. Four hundred eleven tons were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision; 1.5 tons of the CW agent VX remain unaccounted for"

1of42 · February 2, 2008, 12:33am

Watch out dstark, every time someone challenges mini on his baseless claims he clams up and won’t respond.

emeraldkity4 · February 2, 2008, 1:03am

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tried to rewrite history last week when he denied making prewar claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

Rumsfeld’s latest effort at backtracking on his prewar statements came Thursday at a contentious public forum in Atlanta when he faced a handful of hecklers and an anti-war questioner in the audience, who charged that he had lied about Saddam having weapons of mass destruction, which was President Bush’s chief rationale for invading the country and starting the war.

The Pentagon chief denied he had lied and said he had relied on official intelligence reports about Saddam’s weapons.

His questioner persisted: “You said you knew where they were.”

Rumsfeld: “I did not. I said I knew where ‘suspect’ sites were.”

The record shows that in the weeks preceding the war, Rumsfeld flatly claimed to know the whereabouts of Saddam’s WMD arsenal.

On March 30, 2003, 11 days into the war, Rumsfeld was asked in an ABC News interview if he was surprised that American forces had not yet found any weapons of mass destruction.

“Not at all,” Rumsfeld said, according to an official Pentagon transcript. “The area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”

His comments in Atlanta were in line with an earlier attempted revision.

Six months after the invasion, on Sept. 10, 2003, Rumsfeld revisited the WMD issue in remarks at the National Press Club.

"I said, ‘We know they’re in that area,’ " referring to the weapons. “I should have said, ‘I believe we’re in that area. Our intelligence tells us they’re in that area,’ and that was our best judgment.”

<a href=“http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/269394_rumsfeld08.html[/url]”>http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/269394_rumsfeld08.html</a>

<a href=“http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/[/url]”>http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/</a>

dstark · February 2, 2008, 1:34am

I respect Mini as much as any poster, if not more.

I just want to know what happened between 1991 and 2000.

I read a lot of opinions but the facts are a little muddy. I’d like to know the facts so I can form my own opinions.

From what I read, there were weapons found in Iraq in the 90’s. We found Iraq had destroyed weapons that we did not even know existed.

In Iraq, what we found in the 90’s is different than what we found in the 00’s.

1of 42, you write very well and you are obviously very smart. I’m sure you will do very well in life.

emeraldkity4, if that post is reponding to me, I’m looking at the 90’s. I’m not interested in Rumsfeld.

I do like this however.

<a href=“http://youtube.com/watch?v=7sR0n_oYoHA[/url]”>http://youtube.com/watch?v=7sR0n_oYoHA</a>

poetsheart · February 2, 2008, 1:41am

“1of 42, you write very well and you are obviously very smart. I’m sure you will do very well in life.”

Isn’t 1of42 an adult (as in NOT a student?)?

nervousashell · February 2, 2008, 1:51am

"Hey Dstark, best go easy on the KoolAid. "

OBAMA rabid fans are the ones on kool aid.

dstark · February 2, 2008, 2:15am

"Hey Dstark, best go easy on the KoolAid. "
lol

poetsheart · February 2, 2008, 4:44am

All the candidates have their KoolAid drinkers, unfortunately. I’m a committed Independent, however, and haven’t yet made up my mind whom to vote for (though I’d be hard pressed to push the lever for Hillary:p). And truth be told, I’m feeling pretty ambivalent about Obama. Even though Edwards was my candidate, I would never have numbered among his koolAid drinkers. There’s not a single politician worthy of knee-jerk defending and mindless worship.

1of42 · February 2, 2008, 11:02am

poetsheart: No, I’m a student.

dstark: I respect mini as a poster as well; I was merely observing that whenever directly questioned about the issue of his… powerful assertions about Iraq, I have yet to see mini give more than a cursory response before clamming up on the issue and not responding further.

mini · February 2, 2008, 11:58am

“From what I read, there were weapons found in Iraq in the 90’s. We found Iraq had destroyed weapons that we did not even know existed.”

No one (that I know of) denies that there were weapons left over from the 80s found in Iraq. (Hey, come to my state and I’ll show you some here, and much deadlier than those ever produced in Iraq.) We know there were WMDs there, because if the U.S. didn’t actually help Saddam Hussein build them, we actively encouraged and sanctioned their use (the Rumsfeld Handshake).

The Big Lie is that Saddam Hussein was producing WMDs, building delivery systems, and preparing to use WMDs against the U.S. (or anyone else) between 1992-1998. There isn’t a shred of evidence that this was the case. And that’s what I wrote:

“There wasn’t an iota of evidence that Saddam either was producing, or was prepared to deliver weapons of mass destruction toward the U.S. at any time between 1992-1998. For almost five of those years, inspectors kept on saying the same thing. It was created from whole (Democratic) cloth.”

Now the major thing that happened under the U.S. genocidal murderer (United Nations Resolution #260, Article II, Section C, ratified 1948) is that the basis of policy changed, from trying to contain Saddam Hussein, to overthrowing him (killing him in the case of the December 1998 bombings) and occupying the country. Clinton went to great lengths to further this policy, opening up then-secret negotiations with Chemical Ali (he’s the guy who would know a little bit about WMDs ;)) to see if there was an opening for the military to overthrow Saddam Hussein. When that failed (and with a half a million dead children on his hands - undenied - “we think it was worth it”, she said), and with U.S. spies infiltrating UNSCOM outed, and with U.N. weapons inspectors consistently refusing to confirm Clinton’s lies, the genocidal murderer switched to a policy aimed at direct military action. And so he and Tenet did a wonderful number of the “experienced Democrats”, as above. And Tenet notes that when he was asked by George Bush about the WMDs and said it was “a slam dunk”, he wasn’t referring to the existence of WMDs, but the ease with which the story could be sold. He ought to know - he’d already done it. “The gathering was “essentially a marketing meeting,” Tenet writes, to decide what intelligence could be made public to prove Iraq had WMDs.”

Now, let’s be clear - this is not the first time a Democratic President has used the Big Lie in the service of his own ends. John Kennedy did in the fabrication of the so-called “missile gap” in order to get elected. LBJ had his “Gulf of Tonkin”. Jimmy Carter toasted the Shah of Iran for his “commitment to human rights” even while training the torturers. (I’m sure we could make a Republican list too). What is different about Clinton is that a Big Lie was used as a cover for genocide, and led to an aggresssive, hostile occupation of a sovereign nation which “some people” think should last up to 100 years.

mini · February 2, 2008, 12:17pm

Now following the attempt to kill Saddam Hussein through massive aerial bombing in December 1998, and the revelation of the failed CIA infiltration plan, and with UNSCOM kicked out of Iraq by Clinton, Clinton/Tenet still desperately sought justification for their actions.

And then along came CurveBall:

<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Curveball-Spies-Lies-Con-Caused/dp/1400065836/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201972392&sr=8-1[/url]”>http://www.amazon.com/Curveball-Spies-Lies-Con-Caused/dp/1400065836/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201972392&sr=8-1</a>

dstark · February 2, 2008, 12:41pm

Mini, Clinton was told he wasn’t doing enough by UNSCOM. He was told Iraw was a threat. Nuclear programs were found by UNSCOM. Biological programs were found by UNSCOM. Chemical weapons were found by UNSCOM.

Ritter was complained that Clinton was hurting UNSCOM by not doing enough. A year or two after the 1998 bombing, and the bombing did not kill 500,000 people very few people died, Ritter said there were no more weapons to be found. He changed his story. He changed his story after 1998. After sanctions. After the bombing.

So during the 90’s weapons were found. Programs were discovered. Sanctions were not done just for kicks. We both know the US gave Iraq weapons that were used in the Iraq/Iran War.

The sanction program was started by the first George Bush and the UN. Other countries were involved. UNSCOM wasn’t run by an American.

mini · February 2, 2008, 1:01pm

The United Nations NEVER issued sanctions against the shipment of wastewater treatment equipment, against medical supplies, against simple antibiotics, against anti-diarrheals. It never sanctioned the bombing of wastewater treatment plants. Never. This was entirely a U.S. decision, made by a President who believed that if he weakened the population of a sovereign nation enough (by killing them), its military would overthrow its leader. We now know of the negotiations with Chemical Ali. Targeting a mass civilian population for political ends - to get at its leader - has only one name - “genocide”. It’s not a gray area. It wouldn’t matter if Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons - it would still be genocide under the United Nations Convention.

But UNSCOM didn’t find programs. It found evidence that programs had existed. WE KNEW THAT! The U.S. aided those programs in the 1980s. But every time Clinton asked for evidence of active programs to produce weapons or delivery systems, he got the same answer - there isn’t any.

Finally, when it was clear that UNSCOM wasn’t going to give him the answers he wanted, Clinton kicked the 125 inspectors out, and tried to “take Saddam out”. They weren’t to return until a month BEFORE Hillary Clinton voted for War in order to get them back in. :rolleyes:

Of course, among the more interesting tidbits is that, after the U.S. invasion, no WMD could be found at all. It seems that Saddam Hussein had destroyed the rest of the leftovers from the 1980s without any U.N. oversight whatsoever.

momof2inca · February 2, 2008, 1:02pm

Here’s a spanking new video from Black-Eyed Peas that mixes a song to the “lyrics” to one of Obama’s speeches (I think it was his South Carolina victory speech). It’s quite moving.

<a href=“http://youtube.com/watch?v=BHEO_fG3mm4[/url]”>http://youtube.com/watch?v=BHEO_fG3mm4</a>

fundingfather · February 2, 2008, 1:14pm

“There wasn’t an iota of evidence that Saddam either was producing, or was prepared to deliver weapons of mass destruction toward the U.S. at any time between 1992-1998. For almost five of those years, inspectors kept on saying the same thing. It was created from whole (Democratic) cloth.”

Oh please!!! Why not let the UNSCOM report speak for itself rather than through the mini filter:

Secondly, the Commission has been obliged to undertake a degree of forensic work which was never intended to be the case. This was derived, virtually exclusively, from Iraq’s inadequate disclosures, unilateral destruction and concealment activities. These actions, all of which were contrary to the resolutions, made the Commission’s work more difficult and, in many cases, continued even after 1995. Had this behaviour not occurred, a far less searching inquiry by the Commission would have been necessary. The work of verification of Iraq’s declarations would have and should have been far easier and should have been able to be undertaken far more quickly than has proven to be the case. Such concerted obstructions naturally raise the question of why Iraq has carried out these activities.

thirdly, these overall circumstances have meant that, in spite of the years that have passed and the extensive work that has been undertaken, it has not been possible to verify, fully, Iraq’s statements with respect to the nature and magnitude of its proscribed weapons programmes and their current disposition.

<ol>
<li>With respect to this latter point, two comments are apposite. First, Iraq’s current claims that; it has fulfilled all of its disarmament obligations in each weapons area; ceased concealment policies and actions; and, that it has neither proscribed weapons nor the ability to make them are not able to be verified.</li>
<li>Secondly, documents or records available in Iraq in which relevant details of its proscribed programmes and actions are set out: production and acquisition records; records of disposition of weapons; and, records of claimed destruction, relevant policy decisions and decisions on termination of concealment, would be invaluable in helping to close remaining gaps and achieve acceptable confidence in Iraq’s declarations. The Security Council recognised these two aspects in resolution 707 (1991) when it demanded Iraq provide immediate and unconditional access to, inter alia, records, and, demanded that Iraq cease attempts to conceal prohibited materials.</li>
<li>In response to the Commission’s requests for relevant documents, Iraq has repeatedly claimed that they no longer exist or cannot be located, a claim which often has been shown to be false, either because inspection activities have in fact located precisely such documents or because Iraq has reversed its stated position and then produced relevant documents. The Commission briefed the Council on its assessment of the existence and importance of documents in June 1998. The Commission has assessed that the documents provided in August 1995 were only selected categories of documents were provided and that other categories were retained by Iraq. It remains the Commission’s strong view that, under the present circumstances, relevant documentation exists in Iraq and that provision of such documentation is the best hope for revealing the full picture, as required by the relevant resolutions. </li>
<li>On certain other occasions, Iraq has not claimed that documents sought by the Commission do not exist but has stated instead that they are not relevant to the Commission. The judgement of relevance of any given document is for the Commission, not Iraq, to make, as has been recognized by the Security Council.

<a href=“http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/UNSCOM/disarmament.htm[/url]”>http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/UNSCOM/disarmament.htm</a></li>
</ol>

Mini, you are quick to pronounce people liars and nutjobs. I suggest you read the UN report and then tell us again what the inspectors were saying in 1998-99

dstark · February 2, 2008, 1:56pm

Mini, I don’t remember the big lie. The mission was to destroy the weapons that existed, to stop any weapons programs that existed and to destroy Iraq’s future weapon capability.

Mini, we had just kicked Iraq’s ***. We had the no-fly zone. The people in the US weren’t worried about Iraq atacking them.

Post #556
“And that’s what I wrote:”
I disagree with your two middle paragraphs. I don’t think they are facts, and I haven’t read anything that says they are. I am getting a lot of information from Frontline, not exactly a right wing source. Frontline’s account of what happened matches my memory. So does FF’s post. UNSCOM found programs that existed that we did not know about. UNSCOM found new information and weapons in the 90’s.

Clinton was told by UNSCOM that Iraq was hindering its job. UNSCOM told Clinton this. It was not the other way around. Based on this, Clinton came to the conclusion that UNSCOM was never going to be able to fulfill its mission unless Saddam was gone.

Then Albright made her speech stating that we couldn’t lift sanctions unless there was a regime change.

This of course, took the incentive away for Iraqi leaders to help UNSCOM so it wasn’t the brightest statement ever said.

All these US politicians that were saying IRAQ was a threat in the late 90’s were getting their information from UNSCOM.

The following is the difference between the 90’s and the 00’s to me.

In the 90’s, inspectors said they found information about weapons programs, weapons were found, UNSCOM destroyed weapons, Iraq was not cooperative.

In the 00’s, inspectors said they found nothing.

The US and the UN used sanctions in the early and middle 90’s because they thought the masses or the military would turn on Saddam, get rid of Saddam, and that sanctions were more humane than war.

Your arguments about genocide up to 1998 don’t ring true to me.

Your first paragraph in post #556 is problematic.

mercymom · February 2, 2008, 3:34pm

Wasn’t a lot of pressure being put on Clinton (well, if not ‘pressure’, lots of letter writing) from 93 to 98 by a bunch of guys at the American Enterprise Institute with names like Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, etc.?

The difference between 92-00 and 00 til now is that after 2000 those guys from the AEI got their hands on the power of the White House.

note: or maybe it was The New American Century, not the American Enterprise Institute, I forget.

Is Obama done,cooked and baked?

CONNECT WITH US