Will the Bushies Ever Accept the Truth???

[Agathon]

Saddam an Islamist? Shows how much some people know.

[Agathon]

I don't see what the big deal about Saddam was in the first place. After GW1 he couldn't be described as a threat to anyone except perhaps himself.

The WMD thing was a joke, even if he had them he couldn't use them. And to top it all he would have been quite happy to have been Washington's man again.

The only people that have benefited from this fiasco are weapons manufacturers and Islamic fundamentalists.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Agathon
I don't see what the big deal about Saddam was in the first place. After GW1 he couldn't be described as a threat to anyone except perhaps himself.

Iraqis firing upon American and British warplanes isn't threatening?

[Verto]

Originally posted by GePap
Again, Bush wanted regime change-there was no compromise when it came to regime change-even if Saddam left volutarily, the US military would have hqad to go in.

You act as if regime change in Iraq was something unique to Bush. Congress had already passed the Iraqi Liberation Act, and Clinton had already signed it, years before Bush came into office.

Congress First Voted to Back Regime Change in Iraq in 1998

White House seeks new congressional resolution on ousting Saddam Hussein

By Steve LaRocque
Washington File United Nations Correspondent
Washington — As members of the 107th Congress prepare to debate what sort of resolution they should provide the Bush administration in its confrontation with the Baghdad regime of Saddam Hussein, it recalls a similar situation in September 1998 when the 105th Congress dealt with Iraq's threat to international order.

In that mid-term election year, Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act, calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime.

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime," according to the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338).

The Congress urged the President "to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law."

Representative Benjamin Gilman (Republican of New York) introduced H.R. 4655 September 29, 1998. President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law October 31, 1998.

Gilman's bill passed in the House of Representatives on a 360-38 vote October 5, and the Senate approved H.R. 4655 by unanimous consent on October 7.

Clinton signed the bill into law October 31.

In late summer of 1998, Iraq had ceased all cooperation with the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM), after a two-year campaign to thwart the commission's work in Iraq.

According to the Iraq Liberation Act, Iraq was charged with a series of crimes including - invading Iran on September 22, 1980, and using chemical weapons against Iranian troops.

It noted that in February of 1988 Iraq "forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds."

Congress also cited Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 on March 16 of that year.

"On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and began a 7 month occupation of Kuwait, killing and committing numerous abuses against Kuwaiti civilians, and setting Kuwait's oil wells ablaze upon retreat," Congress said.

The Congress pointed to the ceasefire Iraq accepted ceasefire conditions as specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 of April 3, 1991 that required Baghdad to "to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement."

Congress also noted the April 1993 assassination attempt on former President George Bush during his visit to Kuwait.

Since March 1996, the Congress said, Iraq "has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Furthermore on August 5, 1998, "Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM," Congress said.

The Iraq Liberation Act cited Public Law 105-235 of August 14, 1998, which had declared the Baghdad regime was "in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations," and urged President Clinton "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations."

The Iraq Liberation Act said once Saddam Hussein was removed from power, the United States "should support Iraq's transition to democracy."

The Act had strong bipartisan support in the House of Representatives, then controlled by Republicans. Republicans backed the bill by a 202-9 margin with 16 not voting. Democrats lined up behind the bill 157-29, with 20 not voting, and the House's sole Independent voted for H.R. 4655.

The Senate passed the Iraq Liberation Act by unanimous consent, a Senate bill with the same language had been co-sponsored by six Republicans and two Democrats, including Senator Joseph Lieberman (Democrat of Connecticut) and then Senator John Ashcroft (Republican of Missouri), the current Attorney General.

In the House, those backing the bill included House Minority Leader Representative Richard Gephardt (Democrat of Missouri), Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (Republican of Illinois), Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee (Democrat of Texas) and Representative Constance Morella (Republican of Maryland).

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/0919cngr.htm

[I Am Jeff]

Originally posted by Verto


Iraqis firing upon American and British warplanes isn't threatening?

Who cares if Iraq shoots down are manless spy planes.

Just because he shoots at our planes traveling over his countries air space, that does not make him a threat to the U.S. Look I can shoot at a plane above me, that must mean I can strike at a country half-way around the world . . .

[Verto]

Originally posted by I Am Jeff


Who cares if Iraq shoots down are manless spy planes.

Just because he shoots at our planes traveling over his countries air space, that does not make him a threat to the U.S. Look I can shoot at a plane above me, that must mean I can strike at a country half-way around the world . . .

Iraq was firing at more than 'manless spy planes'. And I did not make the connection that attacking our planes meant Hussein had the reach for an intercontinental attack.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If they merely asked for the drawing up of plans, that wouldn't be very telling. The Pentagon is always conveniently drawing up plans and engaging in wargames of countries that are attacked by the U.S. soon afterwards. In 1990, before Iraq invaded Kuwait, the U.S. was conducted a wargame against Iraq.

When placed in an overall context, however, it's another piece of evidence that this war was planned long ago.

And yet ohh so refuted by Woodwards book that claims Bush made hisfinaldecision to go to war in Jan. 2003.

[I Am Jeff]

Originally posted by Verto


Iraq was firing at more than 'manless spy planes'. And I did not make the connection that attacking our planes meant Hussein had the reach for an intercontinental attack.

Firing at planes does not justify the invasion of a country. It is so absurd to think that because he could fire at planes that it makes him a threat. I would even call Saddam fairly benign threat to the U.S. (to his own people, that is a different story).

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Again, this isn't really the point. The point is that once this information was revealed, the Administration and its suporters went into full attack mode, calling O'Neal, Clarke, Meyer, etc. all liars.

I beleive the slams were as follows:

O'Neal - Claimed plans were being made pre 9/11. They claimed this a fallacious. Woodwards report seems to confirms this.

Clarke - Claimed they were negligent wrt pre 9/11 focus on terror. This is the point they fight moreso IMO than planning post 9/11 Iraq planning.

[notyoueither]

Canada had plans for an invasion the of the United States as late as the 1930's.

Plans mean squat.

The ambassador and the State Dept guy are the only good points.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

That tears it. Invade Canada now!

[Alexander's Horse]

I long for the days when people in government knew how to keep a secret.

I fell like I'm the last of a dying breed.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I fell like I'm the last of a dying breed.

Where shall we send the flowers?

[Alexander's Horse]

I'm not telling.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Right O,

Guess we'll have to send them to:

Attn: Overweight Middle Aged Balding Man's Widow
Somewhere Awful
Southern British Penal Colony