New info from Saddam--interesting

[originaloog]

<p>One thing ignored in this discussion of Iraq wmd’s is the fact that UN wmd inspections were ongoing in Iraq for a number of months in the runup to the US invasion and that the UN’s personnel had investigated more than 700 potential sites, finding nothing. During this time both Blix and El Baradei had expressed some frustration at the amount of intelligence assistance that was forthcoming from the US and UK to assist them in their inspection.</p>

<p>A myth perpetuated by conservatives is that Saddam expelled the UN inspectors. This is not true. The UN recalled them when it was evident that the invasion was imminent.</p>

<p>It is true that at the time Blix could not and did not say that there were no wmd’s in Iraq. In fact he is on the record as stating that there were unaccounted quantities of mustard and VX gas at the time they were recalled from Iraq. However the inspections were proceeding well and would have continued but for the rush by the US to commence the war.</p>

<p>Lets see continued UN inspections vs. an intractible war costing 2300 brave American lives, untold thousands of innocent Iraqi lives, plus $400 billion and counting!</p>

[TheDad]

<p>I have rebutted FundingFather’s propaganda about the Butler Report in detail several times, once going into such tedious detail with citations, point by point, that I ran afoul of CC’s 10K-character limit on posts and had to divide the response into three parts. I am not inclined to recapitulate the effort at this late date. </p>

<p>Suffice to say that a summary would be: </p>

<p>a. the Butler Report is a political document, whose purpose is to give Tony Blair a fig-leaf of cover justifying the UK’s participation.</p>

<p>b. the entire product of Niger’s yellowcake production is purchased by, and under substantial oversight of, the French, and the scenario proposed is ludicrous when examined in the total context of known facts about Niger’s production.</p>

<p>c. Thus far, every independent published claim about the Iraqi pursuit of Niger yellowcake traces back, directly or indirectly, to the fraudulent documents produced an Italian con man with tenuous connections to the Italian intelligence services who, in essence, produced the documents as a response to what Americans were looking for evidence of. </p>

<p>Bush lied and continues to lie and he’s not the only one. </p>

<p>True Believers continue to cling to this fantasy because without it the credibility of this Bush so-called administration is exactly where most of us now peg it. Even some of the True Believers are now jumping ship on Iraq. A pity. I would prefer that they go down with it.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>OK, TheDad, let’s agree on the Butler report being propaganda and on Bush relying on faulty information, and even if deliberately so. </p>

<p>Please tell us what was the source of information used by Clinton and Albright to take action against Saddam Hussein? Or better, do YOU feel that the genocide organized and approved by the illustrious tandem was based on correct information? And was it indeed a fair price to pay?</p>

<p>Lastly, could we build a scorecard for the number of fanatical aggressions against the United States and its citizens in the past 15 years, both at home and abroad?</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Before 9/11
x
x
x
x
x
x
x</p></li>
<li><p>Since 9/11
?</p></li>
</ol>

[fundingfather]

<p>

the Butler Report is a political document, whose purpose is to give Tony Blair a fig-leaf of cover justifying the UK’s participation.

Talk about fig-leaves - when there are no facts to back up the assertion, just claim it was “politically motivated” - and then carry on with the best defense is a good offense theory by calling anyone who disagrees with this a liar. </p>

<p>

Thus far, every independent published claim about the Iraqi pursuit of Niger yellowcake traces back, directly or indirectly, to the fraudulent documents produced an Italian con man with tenuous connections to the Italian intelligence services who, in essence, produced the documents as a response to what Americans were looking for evidence of.

Define “independent”. Curious that there seems to be numerous “independent” refutations of the Butler report, but yet none are cited. </p>

<p>But, besides the Butler report, there was other intelligence to confirm the truth of this - and this is from the NY Times of all places (conveniently hidden in the Business section):
<a href=“The New York Times > Business > Intelligence backs claim Iraq tried to buy uranium”>The New York Times > Business > Intelligence backs claim Iraq tried to buy uranium;

These claims support the assertion made in the British government dossier on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programme in September 2002 that Iraq had sought to buy uranium from an African country, confirmed later as Niger. George W. Bush, US president, referred to the issue in his State of the Union address in January 2003.

Contrary to TD’s assertion that " every independent published claim about the Iraqi pursuit of Niger yellowcake traces back, directly or indirectly, to the fraudulent documents produced an Italian con man", this would suggest the opposite:

Officials said the fake documents, which emerged in October 2002 and have been traced to an Italian with a record for extortion and deception, added little to the picture gathered from human intelligence and were only given weight by the Bush administration.

Perhaps TD gets his information from the same web sites as CGM.</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>

Lets see continued UN inspections vs. an intractible war costing 2300 brave American lives, untold thousands of innocent Iraqi lives, plus $400 billion and counting!

If “continued” inspections were a viable alternative, you would have a valid point. Unfortunately, it is valid only in some people’s dreams. The left conveniently forgets what it took to get the inspectors back into Iraq. The cruise missiles that Clinton sent had no impact. It wasn’t until there were several hundred thousand coalition troops on his doorstep before he reluctantly let them in and even then did not provide unfettered access. As the Duelfer report noted, to do a one-time sweep of Saddam’s WMD program would be ineffective. The sanctions and the inspections would have had to have been continuous for as long as Saddam or his sons were in power. To do that would have required an invading force taking up permanent base in Kuwait. To do less than that would have been a 1990s deja vu of Saddam “promising” to comply and then reneging on his promises once the heat was off. Some people fall for that BS, thankfully Bush isn’t one of them.</p>

[bandit_TX]

<p>

b. the entire product of Niger’s yellowcake production is purchased by, and under substantial oversight of, the French, and the scenario proposed is ludicrous when examined in the total context of known facts about Niger’s production.

Of course everyone knows the French would never send nuclear material or technology to a middle eastern country
<a href=“http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/facility/osiraq.htm[/url]”>http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/facility/osiraq.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[originaloog]

<p>The Duelfer, are you kidding me FF? Now try hard to remember, the “reason” we invaded Iraq was because they had “stockpiles” of wmd which were a threat to our national security. The Duelfer report repudiated these claims. It concluded that there were no wmd stockpiles or active wmd programs.</p>

<p>We also know that PNAC, many members of whom ended up in the President’s administration, was urging an invasion of Iraq in 1998.</p>

<p>The biggest threat in the mideast was and is Iran which had a viable economy and weapons program. And who was Iran’s most bitter enemy in the Muslim world? Why lo and behold, Iraq!!! And who had relations with OBL before 9-11? Lo and behold, Iran. Who is delighted with the removal of Saddam and fils in Iraq and the rising influence of the Shiites in Iraq? Lo and behold, Iran!</p>

<p>Strategically this policies of our Administration in the mideast have been an utter failure. Many long time conservatives are finally coming to that same conclusion in recent weeks.</p>

<p>And I remind you that this folly has come at a bitter cost for over 2000 families who have lost sons and daughters in that godforsaken place and many thousands more whose childern have been severely injured.</p>

<p>And the last I heard, only ONE congressman had a child who had been deployed to Iraq. Only ONE! It is pretty easy to support a war when someone elses kids are the ones shedding their prescious blood. We call them chickenhawks.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>“Strategically this policies of our Administration in the mideast have been an utter failure.”</p>

<p>Allow me to make a subtle correction: </p>

<p>Strategically this policies of our Administrations in the mideast have been an utter failure.</p>

<p>Let’s not forget the role of the pre-Dubya administrations, and especially, the Clinton-Gore one in allowing the current threats to our western civilization to develop unchallenged and unchecked. </p>

<p>As far as the 2000 families who have lost members, I’d rather honor their memories in a different way than calling their sacrifice a vain action in that godforsaken place. In fact, a day may come that an entire country will remember that 2,000 American lost their life while helping a country recover its freedom, its democracy, and its dignity. Maybe, just maybe, they may even forgive us by forgetting the hundreds of thousands of children callously and mercilessly killed by a previous administration led by spineless and cynical hypocrites. What was that? A fair price to pay according to dear Madeleine. </p>

<p>“And the last I heard, only ONE congressman had a child who had been deployed to Iraq. Only ONE! It is pretty easy to support a war when someone elses kids are the ones shedding their prescious blood. We call them chickenhawks.”</p>

<p>Again, it is also easy to support a war when we lob missiles from a safe distance or starve an entire population to death. All lives carry the same price and the blood of innocent Iraqi children is as precious as ours. Burying the past under a rug -persian or not- is so damn easy, isn’t it?</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>

Now try hard to remember, the “reason” we invaded Iraq was because they had “stockpiles” of wmd which were a threat to our national security. The Duelfer report repudiated these claims. It concluded that there were no wmd stockpiles or active wmd programs.

Come on loog, I suspect that you are smarter than this post would indicate. Certainly you must realize that there were multiple reasons for going into Iraq and that destroying existing WMD sites was one small tactical portion of it. One would have to be a headline-only reader to think that the stockpiles of WMDs designed for battlefield use was the primary mission. A broader strategic intent (just one of several reasons) was to remove the possible threat of Saddam creating WMDs that were designed for terrorist use and then collaborating with terrorists in delivering these weapons to American cities. To prevent this would require one of three things:

1. a permanent stationing of an invasion force of several hundred thousand troops on Saddam’s border to assure that he would continue to comply with never-ending inspections.
2. removal of Saddam from power
3. a massive effort of keeping our collective fingers crossed that Saddam would not reconstitute his WMD program and that he would never allign with terrorists. The Duelfer, Kay and 9/11 reports all point to the extreme unliklihood of our “getting lucky” in this respect.</p>

<p>As mentioned, this was just one of many reasons for going to war. The administration made a huge mistake by allowing the media to frame it in such narrow terms as a search for WMD stockpiles. If that was all that it was, I would be the first to say it was a fool’s errand.</p>

[originaloog]

<p>xiggi-you win, it was all Clinton’s fault.</p>

<p>FF-you win too. I will feel so much safer when the radical Shiites control the government and align themselves with Iran. Wow, we can declare victory, bring our troops home, and rest well knowing that the United Iraqi Alliance which has strong ties to Iran and lists al-Sistani and al-Sadr among its radical supporters is in control of the provisional government. Even though they have characterized America as the great satan, they would never cavort with OBL and his ilk. We will live happily ever after with our collective fingers crossed.</p>

<p>C’mon FF. Don’t be so naive to think that this war has even begun to solve our terrorism situation, stabalized conditions in the middle east and increased Israel’s security. Need I say more that free elections and Hammas? Just wonderful!</p>

[xiggi]

<p>“xiggi-you win, it was all Clinton’s fault.”</p>

<p>Original, I understand why your reply has to be dismissively sarcastic. At least, I grant you that it did provide an answer and that is a LOT more reaction than I ever get from the Bush-bashers to the Albright genocide. To that, I usually only hear the deafening silence of muted embarassment. </p>

<p>As I said, it is easier to take a seat and criticize the decisions made by our government. On the other hand, the policies of laissez-faire and the resulting inaction are a lot tougher to properly analyze. It is easy for any of us to take a snapshot of history and find reasons to question anyone’s decisions. However, it is undeniable that the United States, under Clinton turned inwards and allowed foreign politics to simmer on the backburner. It is equally undeniable that Clinton’s appointments of Warren Christopher and especially Madeline Albright -who was easily identified as our most incompetent, bombastic, and antagonistic Ambassador to the UN ever- were clear signs of his lack of interest in foreign policy. We have paid the price for our insular policies and are still paying it today. The degree of causality and contributions of the last four administrations does not really matter, but it is darn wrong to believe that our troubles only started on 9-11-2001. </p>

<p>The jury is still out on the decision by the last and current administrations. The same cannot be said about the previous two, and I am not surprised why the Bush bashers hate so much for the truth about their cherished former leaders to be hurled back at them.</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>“lists al-Sistani and al-Sadr among its radical supporters”</p>

<p>You clearly need to do some homework if you make statements like that.</p>

[TheDad]

<p>FF spins better than my clothes dryer. Here’s a word: collaboration. For at least a period, if not now, we owned Iraq. The people. The government ministries. The documents. Not one shred of evidence has emerged in support of the yellowcake fantasies or any of the others. Not one individual, of all the myriad in custody, has stepped forward in search of better treatment for himself and his family, to point any shred of evidence in support of “looming mushroom clouds” or anything more dangerous than a weather balloon (purported to be a WMD delivery device). The reports that FF cites have the probative value of a neo-con comic book, behind even such dubious and error-ridden sourcds as CaptainsQuarters, RedState.com, NRO, Weekly Standard, WindsofChange, FreeRepublic, et alia et sequitur ad nauseam nil valorum. Saddam Hussein used doubt about WMD as a deterrence. Some people were dupes. And apparently some people still are.</p>

<p>Xiggi, it gives me great enjoyment to watch you channeling Mini. I can only hope that the conversion goes all the way. </p>

<p>Certainly, errors occur in every administration. I would dispute the term “genocide” as it was Saddam Hussein’s reactions to sanctions that ensured that. However, it was certainly a “miss” by the Clinton admnistration. As was the inaction in response to the ethnic cleansing in Rwanda. Both are cause for sorrow but neither one was borne of insular arrogance and the desire of the President to wave his genitals around the Middle East in an effort to out-do his father.</p>

<p>And then there was Clinton’s hesitancy to go into Bosnia, hampered by fear of criticism about use of military force, notably by Bob Dole and Senate Republicans, and a reluctance to commit forces without bi-partisan agreement, a relucatance thankfully shed by the time Kosovo rolled around. If I had been President, I would have told the Senate Republicans to write their objections on a piece of paper, roll the paper up, stick it up their asses, and rotate…and then gone ahead into Bosnia anyway. Srebenica and Sarajevo are blots on the West in general and America in particular because we were the power that could have actually done something about it. In terms of realpolitik, it would have been nice to have come in militarily in a situation where Muslims were the Good Guys instead of leaving the Iranians, Al Qaeda, etc. to be their sole active supporters for so long.</p>

<p>But the jury is not out on this administration, the verdicts are already coming in. Its insularity, arrogance, and incompetence are breathtaking in scope. The only coin left to flip is “evil” versus merely “malign.” Even some of the neocon architects of Bushism are beginning to jump ship. It’s okay with me: were this administration a ship, I’d pump four torpedoes into it and when the smoke cleared I’d pump in four more. Afterwards, I’d cruise the waters to machinegun any survivors in the waters.</p>

<p>Bush the Stumblebum has brought it all on himself. Take the Dubai ports deal. Objectively, there was little wrong with it, save perhaps the sweetheart deal that they didn’t have to maintain records on U.S. soil; many of our port facilities are already owned & operated by the Chinese, the Koreans, and others. But Bush has for five years promoted a vague, amorphous, gut-level, unthinking, unnuanced fear of “terrorism” for political purposes, to the extent that roughly a quarter of the public thinks that Iraqis were the majority of 9/11 hijackers and that Saddam Hussein helped plan 9/11. Well, with the ports deal, it came back to bite him in the ass. Bush’s mindless approach having now bitten him in the ass, I hope it keeps chewing. </p>

<p>But Clinton lied under oath about sex. I understand the equivalence.</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>Nice try TD, but you still have offered no proof that the Butler report was politically motivated or that the corroborating NY Times article was Republican spin or that Bush lied about the yellow cake. But, I’m sure that lack of facts won’t stop you from continuing your slime machine against Bush or anyone who points out your shortcomings. It’s fascinating to watch someone to continue to refuse to acknowledge all factual findings and in the face of all evidence to the contrary continue to foist the “Bush lied about yellowcake” banner.</p>

<p>Your attempt to spin it based on current revelations or lack thereof indicates that you have no clue as to what a “lie” is or, more likely, a feeble attempt to divert attention away from your lack of any proof of what you claim.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>“Xiggi, it gives me great enjoyment to watch you channeling Mini. I can only hope that the conversion goes all the way.”</p>

<p>TD, were you to apply your collosal research skills to the CC posting history, you may find out that my multiple references to Mrs. Albright adorned this site well before you even predicted John Kerry’s victory. Rest assured that my position is not an attempt at copycatting Mini’s. However, if we happen to share the same disdain for the outcome of the Albright policies regarding the fate of children in Uraq, I’d say power to both of us. </p>

<p>Heck, I have no qualms agreeing with you on many issues and disagreeing on others. However, I do not believe that many would accuse me to be prone to channel you. Hmmm, come to think about it, maybe I could be wrong on that one!</p>

<p>PS By the way, I am happy to read your analysis of the mistakes from the past administrations. There might have been a few omissions regarding not taking OBL more seriously and needing proof of his crimes or attacks on US embassies and ships, but I’ll settle for your current acknowledgement.</p>