<p>
Actually, the UN arms investigators got into Iraq, and correctly determined that there were no WMD’s there, and reported back those facts. The only problem that arose with our talking about Iraq at the UN was we didn’t listen. Maybe there’s a lesson there that even the right wing could learn from?</p>
<p>^ Saddam’s FBI interviewer was himself interviewed on 60 Minutes. Saddam destroyed the WMD…he said he had every intention of restarting the program when the inspectors left.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494_page6.shtml[/url]”>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494_page6.shtml</a>
</p>
<p>I brought up about comparing a statesmanlike approach to make peace, using an example of Anwar Saddat, President of Egypt who finally went to talk to elected leaders in Jerusalem. (Thanks tommybill for trying to defend my idea.)</p>
<p>So, no I wasn’t envisioning an American president sitting in a cave in Pakistan talking to Osama!</p>
<p>I would just like to see a return to the United States president as someone who ventures out to talk to elected leaders, or those designated as leaders in some honorable fashion, rather than hiding (Bush) or growling (Cheney) from within these borders.</p>
<p>In the 8 years of Dubya’s presidency…he just found his way over to the Middle East LAST MONTH. And he barely sent Condi over there until recently, either.</p>
<p>I missed where Bush might try some kind of dialogue with Musharaf, current leader of Pakistan, concerning Osama’s situation. Why do we know his region yet haven’t found him in 7 years? Bush could also be in dialogue with the leaders of Saudi Arabia not to fund terrorism. If he can’t get direct communication, go through other channels and talk to those who these leaders would listen to. Teamwork.</p>
<p>I more envision a president speaking with leaders of each nation, not directly talking to terrorists in a cave! I believe that these foreign leaders have many tools with which they can either protect or disenfranchise those who hide the terrorists within their midst. The example of Daniel Pearl, in Pakistan, is notable for that theme; when the government chose to lean down and find his killers, they were found. Until then, they were protected, all within Pakistan.</p>
<p>(BTW, I disconnect myself from any ad hominem attack on engineers and others. Everybody is entitled to have a political conversation. I prefer respectful tones.)</p>
<p>Well said, p3t.</p>
<p>bush? engage in dialog? Now that is funny.</p>
<p>“In fact, Piro says Saddam intended to produce weapons of mass destruction again, some day. “The folks that he needed to reconstitute his program are still there,” Piro says.”</p>
<p>Let me take you to my local jail, where you can meet folks who will tell you that, when they get out, they are ready and prepared and intending to produce weapons of mass destruction. If you ask 'em whether they mean “nucular”, they’ll say, “why, sure!” And when you ask 'em about the biological and chemical, they might clam up, 'cause you might be framing 'em for that there meth lab. And then they’ll give you Brenda’s phone number, and…:rolleyes:</p>
<p>Obama was talking about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, not Osama Bin Laden. The democratically elected (if very unpleasant) President of a fairly developed, fairly rich country with over 65 million people and (maybe) nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, that American tactics in Iraq and Afghanistan are destabilizing, in ways that we intend and in ways that we don’t intend.</p>
<p>I’m not sure what I think about Obama’s proposal. I thought at the time it was half-baked and a sign of his inexperience. But it isn’t remotely comparable to suggesting a peace conference with al-Qaeda, no matter how the Bushies try to demonize Iran. Iran and the U.S. have lots of interests in common, and lots of interests not in common, and Iranians have a complex love-hate relationship with America. (It’s a complex place, that much is clear.) Some day, we are going to have to re-engage with them, that’s for sure. It’s just a question of when. (And whether we try to “shock and awe” them first, which I think would be a horrible idea.)</p>
<p>UCBChem, do you think it was also a bad idea for The United States to engage The Soviet Union in diplomatic talks, and anti-missile proliferation agreements?</p>
<p>JHS:</p>
<p>Actually, Obama’s idea was floated within the administration. But as various agencies weighed in, a small covert operation ballooned into such a large one that it would have not been feasible; so the plan was abandoned.</p>
<p>Geez, everyone is ripping on me…</p>
<p>I have been very disappointed with the Bush administration for not engaging in diplomatic talks…I believe he has had the fewest state dinners during his presidency. His oratory skills are atrocious.</p>
<p>But, in terms of Iraq, Democrats seem to forget that we pursued diplomatic solutions. The UN Security Council passed countless resolutions concerning Iraq, and Iraq didn’t comply. Congress approved going to war. We didn’t see all the security reports the President saw…He made a decision based on the intelligence at the time.</p>
<p>mini, I think Saddam had a lot more intelligence than you give him credit for…</p>
<p>He also had the ways and the means. Anyone who would allow many in his country to starve while he built palaces and grew his army, etc would have no problem rebuilding the WMD programs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You really think bush made the decision??</p>
<p>Lealdragon,
did you read the Washington Post series on Cheney? I am with you… I don’t think George Bush has made any decisions…because I think the information he was presented with was all controlled and managed so that his decisions were predetermined before he was even aware that a decision was needed. Bush says he is the decider…but that assumes unfiltered information. Someone isn’t deciding anything if their only presented with a single point of view. Cheney stopped any and all intelligence that challenged his agenda. That is NOT the American Leadership I want in my president.</p>
<p>Re diplomatic solutions: The United States went through a sham of pretending to do diplomacy through the UN. And Iraq DID comply, and the UN investigators concluded that it had, and we simply refused to believe them because it would get in the way of our invasion. Our government wasn’t interested in diplomacy other than as a means of legitimizing its war. What is was interested in was demonstrating American military might, getting oil fields and strategic real estate into friendly hands, and making Iran and the Arab world toe the line. None of which we did very effectively or economically.</p>
<p>One of the big issues with Iraq’s compliance, by the way, was Saddam’s unwillingness to let Iran know for sure he didn’t have WMD. Because Iran was a bigger threat to Iraq than we were.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>"Jan. 27, 2003- The UN Weapons Inspectors’ formal report on Iraq is critical, though not damning. Chief UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix states, “ Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it.”
<a href=“http://www.afsc.org/iraq/guide/war-timeline.htm[/url]”>http://www.afsc.org/iraq/guide/war-timeline.htm</a></p>
<p>
The reason bin Laden orchestrated an attack on the US was because US troops were in Saudi Arabia…protecting it from Saddam Hussein.</p>
<p>
Yes, he listened to his advisors. It was his decision to go forward. It doesn’t mean he wasn’t influenced…but he knew the consequences of the decision.</p>
<p>Question: If this was such an ill-conceived decision based on cooked up evidence, why the heck would Condoleeza Rice stick around his administration? She was Bush’s National Security Advisor during his first term.</p>
<p>Also, all these problems manifested on Clinton’s watch…intelligence levels at the CIA worsened. “Shortly After October 12, 2000: US Decides Against Immediate Counterstrike on Al-Qaeda after Cole Bombing”
<a href=“Center for Cooperative Research - Find Your Bill of Sale Template Online”>Center for Cooperative Research - Find Your Bill of Sale Template Online;
</p>
<p>I think a we R’s are going to win no matter what happens. If one of the R candidates win, its going to be a new direction for this sad party. If the D win, then the party is going to purge itself and come back as something new. Either way, its a win. At least for me-all I want is the purging of W and his band of idiots.</p>
<p>UCBChemEGrad,
I disagree that George even had real advisors…Cheney surrounded Bush with yes men…even Condoleeza is a yes man to this administration. Different reasons, but no one gives George Bush unfiltered advice. And Cheney has stacked the deck against legitimate info getting to the president. Apparently today he said he backed George Bush’s waterboarding decisions…right…if someone is subliminally selling you this stuff for years, then eventually you might even think it is your idea. And I agree with you, Thisoldman, any and every change is a good thing for the R party. I just cannot believe that now they are buying votes with this stimulus package. I only hope we get to 2009…and don’t implode beforehand.</p>
<p>“even Condoleeza is a yes man to this administration”</p>
<p>Did I miss a sex change operation?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>OH NOES! THE SKY IS FALLING!!11!!</p>