It's funny because in the 9/11 Commission Report Richard Clarke was very hard on the Clinton Administration, but the media only talked about what he said in his book. The report even acknowledged that the Bush Administration had a pre-emptive strike planned for the Taliban, Al Qeada, and Usama prior to 9-11, and that they had given them much more attention than Clarke originally said. The fact that one of the bombers in the first WTC attack was welcomed by Saddam afterwards seems to be ignored as well. I agree. I didn't know anything about politics in the 90's, but Clinton didn't seem to have some weird obessesion with appeasing the French and Germans like Kerry. Kerry scares me, because I think focusing just on Al Qeada is the wrong way to go. That appears to be his plan. What really irks me about the whole WMD thing and the media coverage is that in the 90's I knew nothing about politics, but I knew Iraq was a threat. I knew they had weapons they weren't suppose to have, I knew about the resolutions and them breaking them. I didn't watch the news often, I didn't know the differene between a Republican and Democrat until 2000. I hadn't heard of FoxNews, didn't know who Rush Limbaugh was, never heard of the Weekly Standard or National Review, but I knew Iraq was a threat. Clinton, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN did a good job getting that message out. I guess they were just lying too.
CSPAN 2 had the rebroadcast of the hearing on last night. I missed the first part and caught about 20 - 30 minutes of it before my girlfriend got ticked off and I changed the channel. Along with Duelfer, they also had the Brig. General in charge of the military forces doing the searches and investigations into WMD's in Iraq. Going back to what I said earlier, Duelfer said that he didn't think there were any large stockpiles of WMD's to be found in Iraq. He had earlier been asked, on a scale of 1 - 100, what did he say the chances are we would find these large stockpiles. He answered 5. He was then asked if he was absolutely sure, and he more or less said pretty positive, although he wasn't as sure concerning biological weapons. When asked about if the whereabouts of all the major players in the chemical/biological was known to us, he said we know where "most" are. Most are still in Iraq, some are working in the US. He was also asked to clarify an earlier response he had concerning biological/chemical weapons Saddam had prior to 1991 that could not be accounted for to the UN. He was asked could he be more specific as to his thoughts on what happened to them, as the way it sounded his earlier response was something along the lines of "classified information". All he said was for example the 500 ordinances containing mustard gas, some are being found, but he doesn't think they pose any real threat. Don't pose any real threat? They are being used to make IED's to attack our troops. Sound like a threat to me, but he never mentioned anything else, as a Democrat from Arkansas asked him a loaded question about was it wrong to invade Iraq, should we have let the sanctions do the job. He responded, as he had said earlier, the effect of the sanctions had greatly eroded, and he was not someone capable of making that analysis. One question I have is why do they think the unacounted for biological/chemical weapons don't pose a threat, and what threat are they referring to? If they don't pose a threat to our troops on the ground, is it because they have been smuggled out of the country? There are many questions yet to be answered, I'm sure some already have been, but those answers are classified. I know, based on what the General said, the investigation is ongoing;they are still investigating reports of possible findings of WMD's and translating documents and such, so a lot of information is yet to come. Maybe our resident WMD expert Crawfish will be able to shed some light on it when he checks in this morning. I'm sure he watched the whole briefing last night, considering his interest in the topic.
A 1,000 page report, hours of testimony. Remove the filler from the article ,and the media gives us less than a page of information. Kind of like I happened to see on CBS last night. I caught part of 60 Minutes II or whatever the program was, not sure. They had the story of an Iraqi family in Baghdad talking about how much worse their lives were since we went to war, compared to life under Saddam. They said they were glad he was removed, and wouldn't want to go back under his rule. Then the reporter happens to mention the father or uncle, I don't exactly remember, was a fairly high ranking military officer under Saddam. Hmmm.....maybe that explains things a bit, because I'm sure Saddam took good care of his people, as we have all heard. Of course I didn't watch the second half of the show, so I'm sure that CBS, being the "fair and balanced" a news group it is, probably devoted the second half of the show to interviewing a Kurdish family to see how their lives had changed.
Do you have some examples? I don't think appeasement has anything to do with it. The Krauts and the Frogs have stopped kissing our ass for the first time in 60 years, that's all. Iraq was just too over-the-top for them to follow us. They will all pucker up again, in time. Once the current administration is gone, . . . or whenever they get threatened and need a powerful ally. Are you actually saying that focusing on the people who are responsible for the 9/11 attacks is the wrong way to go? What???? Iraq was a threat to middle east stability, to Kuwait, to Iran, and to Israel. But Iraq was never a threat to the United States of America. Iraq was not an unstable Islamic country owning nuclear weapons and missiles capable of hitting US forces--Pakistan is with Iran on deck. Iraq was not a nuclear-armed country with missiles capable of hitting US forces and threatening us--Korea is. Iraq was not a base for Al Qaida terrorists, the people who attacked us on 9/11.--Afghanistan and Pakistan are. Iraq was a secular state that did not harbor and support fundamentalist terrorist groups like Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas--Syria and Iran do. The fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 terrorists were not from Iraq--They were from Saudi Arabia. Saddam had no air force, no navy, and a ragtag army with no missiles, and no WMD's. We kicked their ass in 21 days with two divisions. Iraq was not a base for Al Qaida. Iraq was a rare secular Islamic country, not a fundamentalist religious regime like Iran. But now, because of this poorly-thought-out invasion, Iraq has actually become a threat to the United States. It threatens our economy, eating up 100 Billion dollars a year. Not our tax dollars, Bush having cut his tax income and creating the largest national debt in history. The US must borrow the money to pay for the war from the Bank of China, among other places. The Iraq War threatens the military readiness of this country which is ill prepared to deal with a crisis in Europe, Korea, or the Taiwan Strait right now. There is no foreseable end to the guerrilla war in Iraq. There is not a democratic government anywhere in the Arab world, and there ain't going to be one blossoming in Iraq anytime soon. Bush turned a bad situation into a worse one and the only question is whether we can get out before it bankrupts us. And the real enemy, bin Laudin and Al Qaida have not been caught. And the American public was mislead about Iraqi WMD's. Bush let his own people hoodwink him . . . or he hoodwinked us. Probably both. We need a change.
Actually, going into Iraq wasn't too over the top for them...you're ascribing a nobility of purpose to these countries that just doesn't exist. The truth of the matter is that it would have been a bad business decision on their part. After all, if you're a "legitimate" businessman doing business under the table w/ the local hoodlum, are you really going to help the cops bust said hoodlum? Not only does the illicit cash flow stop, but now, you're complicit in the hoodlum's crimes just by dealing w/ him. This was widely suspected before the war...now the the Oil for Food scandal is coming to light, sealing the deal.
[ France, Germany, Russia, China. They're all the same when it comes to this. Companies in these nations were raking in billions in oil for food scandal money. Whether the governments were involved remains to be seen, but no doubt there were govt. officials on the take. To press the Iraq issue would have shed light on their guilt. They refused the help they promised to cover their own a$$es. She said "just" Al Qaeda. Although they are the group that hit us, there are numerous Islamic terror groups around the world with the same common theme. They hate the free world, particularly America, and will do anything they can to strike us. All these groups must be given respect for what they can do and the attention it takes to stop them. [ If they were funding terrorist networks, then yes they were a threat to the US. Numerous investigations (once again, see oil for food scandal) are underway, and the results won't be available until much later, so it is very early to be jumping to conclusions. As I have stated before, before we had a presence in Iraq, we did not have the logistical capabilities to pose a serious threat to Syria or Iran. Now that we have forces bordering these countries, we are in a position to be more assertive and force the issue. Are we ready for an invasion of either? No, but we do pose a much greater threat to them. Yes, there was a huge mistake in predicting how the situation in Iraq would evolve. No reasonable person can dispute that. It was wrong to assume France, Germany and the other UN types would pitch in as they promised and assist with the reconstruction.
I was thinking of when someone would ask him what other allies he could get he would only mention France and Germany. There's nothing that can be done to get either on board. Yet he continued to act like they were needed. They aren't. Huh? You sound like Crawfish. I said we shouldn't only focus on Al Qeada. They are the biggest threat, but it's naive to think they are the only threat. I disagree. Pakistan is now working with us in the War on Terror. You think we should invade North Korea? There is still diploamcy to be done there. Kerry is the one trying to give them what they want, the power. Just like Clinton did which is why they have the weapons now. Kerry wants to do the same thing with Iran. Correction: WERE Iran is not being ignored, neither is Syria. Just look at a map. Iraq did harbor and support terrorists. No one implied they were from Iraq. I disagree. There are other enemies. Al Qeada has taking a severe beating over the last 3 years. Y'all can pretend Bush has been ignoring Al Qeada since we invaded Iraq, doesn't make it true.
Couple of other things... I've heard this many times, but it doesn't change the fact that he was harboring terrorists. He was a declared enemy of the United States, Usama Bin Laden declared war against us. The media noticed a growing connection between the two in the late 90's, other intelligence agencies noticed it. I don't think there could be anything worse than these two getting together and having a little pow-wow over the U.S. I don't think anyone was expecting Iraq to invade us or anything, but he had the capabilities to make WMD, and he was planning on making them again. That doesn't sound dangerous to you? The thought of him giving that info away is scary. The 9/11 Commission reported has him training Al Qeada in WMD. Why would he keep all of his scientists around? Why would he have secret labs? He was either hiding something or trying to "mislead" the world. I think it could have been thought out better, but I don't think we'll really know for a few years how well the actual invasion was planned. I do agree that our military is spread thin right now. I think we have the highest number of ships ever in or headed to the Pacific. Mostly to put pressure on China in relation to Taiwan, but there sitting nice and pretty next to North Korea. There will be no ground offensive against North Korea or Iran,those are our to biggest threats. So I think we are ok for now. I don't think anyone believes we will have a perfect Democratic government in Iraq, but the ally and bases will be exteremely helpful in fighting the War on Terror. Mostly by scaring the hell out of Iran, Syria, and all others. You mention other countries like Syria, North Korea, Iran, and what not, but we haven't been batteling them for 10 + years the way we have Iraq, they haven't broken 17 Resolutions. They haven't used their weapons like Saddam. They haven't shot at our planes. There is still other actions to be taken against them, and finally the US has shown they will back up there talk. Which I think is one of the most important aspects of the war, other than getting rid of terrorist state, the hope of stabilizing the Middle East at least somewhat, the bases, the allies, and just our overall presence there.
Its funny to me that we are only 1 year and 6 months after the end of the war. We might not have found WMD's yet but we still could. The truth of the matter is Democrats and a few other people only see things for what they are in the short term vs the long term. We haven't had time to explore all parts of Iraq including underground bunkers etc. As soon as we win over the people and some of the scientists we could easily find out the truth. I hope we or they are able to find these WMD's and make an awful lot of people look foolish for saying this kind of stuff. Its also funny how conveniently anti-Bush people including Democrats forget about terrorist camps we found in Iraq.
