We had the manpower in place, the Shiites were on board, and we could have pulled it off. But because of bush 1.0's hesitance and fear of pissing off the UN, we walked out. BIG mistake. If we would have done it then, the world would have been a much safer place now. Saddam would not have massacred all the Shiites, not paid the suicide bombers families and motivated others to do the same. Then we could have focused more on the real threats in this world unfettered. Like Iran and North Korea.

That was Kerry's style of diplomacy at work!!

Give us your heart and we will give you a fart!

- GX

Also don't forget to forget the Oil For Program even though the scandal has been proven to be TRUE.

Forget the truth we want your tooth!

- GX

I think it is important to note, ( according to the The Duelfer Report that Liberals seem to love to quote ) , Hussein himself didn't break it to his generals that they didn't have WMDs at their disposal until 3 months or so before we invaded. If Tariq Aziz thought Hussein had WMDs to use against us that soon before the war, it is pretty understandable that Western intelligence agencies would have thought the same thing...

BTW, there's lots of stuff in the The Duelfer Report, lots more than this sad "There were no WMDs!!" mantra. If Kerry wants to base his election on his belief that sanctions were working, and that our former "allies" were the moral authorites to be persuaded in the conflict, he's going to need to explain where HIS intelligence came from...

Grim...You poor misguided person you

It's not Kerrys diplomacy, it was just the right thing to do. Shoulda been done in 91. End of story.

It's not Kerrys diplomacy, it was just the right thing to do. Shoulda been done in 91. End of story.

You are right it is not Kerry's diplomacy, the credit goes to the original author of that diplomacy, Jimmy Carter.
It didn't work than during Carter, didn't work with Bush Sr. and WON'T WORK NOW!!

- GX
The Anti-Demican Anti-Republicrat Libertarian

I for one am glad Saddam is gone for the reasons I have stated countless times before the war began and since.

 

If you read the full Duelfer report, as opposed to the headlines, you'll find out that it actually supports most of the pre-war intelligence assessment. It confirms, for those who might have been inclined otherwise, that Saddam maintained as much of the machinery for WMD development as he could possibly hold onto in the face of the sanctions and calls for inspections, and actively tried to give the impression that he was hiding something all along for what he perceived to be leverage. That he was dealing behind his back with French & Russian elements to gain the finances for reconstituting his weapons programs is plain as day.

Any President, given the overwhelming intelligence estimates available from both his own and other allied intelligence services, knowing what Saddam had already done, that he was sympathetic to and supportive of America's enemies, including al Qaeda (sorry, read the 9/11 Commission Report), and knowing the risks of leaving terrorists safe haven anywhere, who failed to intervene in Iraq would have been derelict in his duty to us. Kerry himself has said, given the same set of circumstances, he would have done the same thing, just "smarter," whatever that means. That Saddam had managed to fool the world's intelligence services, being defiant enough to maintain the fiction that he was hiding fully-constituted WMD, doesn't post-facto negate the wisdom of toppling his regime; it just puts the lie to the so-called wisdom of those who castrated our intelligence capabililities in the late 1980's and 1990's. The strident "Wrong war, Wrong place, Wrong time" mantra is just sickening political posturing.

And it is the height of hypocrisy to bash Bush 1.0 for "failing to get Saddam when he had the chance" while supporting the Kerry Doctrine, which would have absolutely precluded doing so. People forget, for all the talk about the "broad coalition" behind Desert Storm, a lot of that commitment and support was specifically conditioned on the requirement that we not take Saddam out. Had Bush 1.0 gone to Baghdad and taken him out in defiance of the express wishes of many coalition members, the Left would have been apoplectic.

Guess you know where I stand.

Daiwa,
the report does indeed give many positive reasons for why Saddam should have been removed. These need to be seriously looked at and were known before the war. Indeed many people felt these were truer reasons than WMD from the start. The report on these peripheral issues though, like CIA intelligence on WMD in 2002, needs to be seen as indicators not facts. Most of these reasons are not backed up with firm intelligence as this was outside the scope of the inspectors. They therefore may make the exact same mistakes the CIA made in 2002 by using indicators to proof the existence of WMD. For example, the report cut and pastes a list of individuals who received food for oil vouchers from a single document found in Iraq, but there is currently zero proof that the list itself is accurate. There are many names on that list that are known NOT to have received vouchers, and there are people known to have dealt in Iraqi oil who are not on that list. More importantly, receiving vouchers itself is not wrong as this was how the food for oil programme worked. Interestingly they don't publish the US names on the list as that's illegal under US law . People are willing to use that list to point fingers at Russia, China and France though.

I also have a problem with the assumption that the first gulf war ended because coalition members or the UN didn't want Iraq conquered. I have never seen proof or even suggestion of this. The French were definitely very upset when a ceasefire was called (and publically stated so) as their foreign legion was only about 50 miles from bagdad and Saddam. They for one wanted the war finished. No, i think it was the US that decided not to finish the job for fear of creating a vacuum that Iran might use. They probably felt Saddam would fall anyway.

I personally belive in right war, wrong reasons, too many lies

Paul.

Grim,

You're still missing my point. We should have taken saddam out in 91, not played the UN game for 13 years. You would have thought our government wouldhave learned after vietnam when you fight a war, you fight to win, not to please the UN.

"You're still missing my point. We should have taken saddam out in 91, not played the UN game for 13 years. You would have thought our government wouldhave learned after vietnam when you fight a war, you fight to win, not to please the UN."

and your gonna vote for... kerry??

You understand that Kerry voted AGAINST the Gulf War the first time, and proposed waiting for sanctions to drive Hussein out of Kuwait, right? I wonder where the Kuwaiti people would be today after 10+ years of living with Hussein's angst...

Yes im voting for kerry. you can be a dem and believe that wars should be won the right way. I know that is a strange concept for you repubs to grasp...but get used to it, theres a lot of us out there.

You're still missing my point. We should have taken saddam out in 91, not played the UN game for 13 years. You would have thought our government wouldhave learned after vietnam when you fight a war, you fight to win, not to please the UN.

Kerry wanted to keep playing that UN game with Iraq, so how am I missing the point, Carter diplomacy didn't work worth shit period. Even if we ousted Saddam in '91, we still would have lost alot of personnel in the reconstruction process or do we just forget about that part?

- GX

Dr. you just got your last comment deleted. Childish comments like that serve no purpose. Sorry but you had it coming.

Grim.....weak logic. A hell of a lot less people would have died with the Shia militias not even existing. Al Qaida wasn't around at the time, so your arguement holds no water. I also noticed you left bush 1.0 off your list of negotiating presidents. Oversight? i think not!

Reply #38 By: thatoneguyinslc - 10/8/2004 7:44:26 PM Dr. you just got your last comment deleted. Childish comments like that serve no purpose. Sorry but you had it coming.

Like that's supposed to bother me? Personally I don't care if you delete every comment I've made on your blog. Just goes to show me you take the heat.

Grim.....weak logic. A hell of a lot less people would have died with the Shia militias not even existing. Al Qaida wasn't around at the time, so your arguement holds no water. I also noticed you left bush 1.0 off your list of negotiating presidents. Oversight? i think not!

How in the hell did I list Presidents or when did I? My logic is not weak your understanding is weak. Al Qaida was not around that time, so last time I checked Al Qaida is not the only terrorist organization or was Beirut just a dream to you? How about TWA flights? Did you know that more than one terrorist organization exists or does that not factor into YOUR LOGIC? Shia schmia, it still would have cost us alot of lives, since he had already been in power for over 15 years in 1991, or was that not a factor in your logic either? Seriously see the big picture once in while will you, you might see something you missed when only using tunnel vision on the small picture, how about that, hmm?

Reply #30 By: Citizen Grim Xiozan - 10/7/2004 10:35:56 PM It's not Kerrys diplomacy, it was just the right thing to do. Shoulda been done in 91. End of story. You are right it is not Kerry's diplomacy, the credit goes to the original author of that diplomacy, Jimmy Carter. It didn't work than during Carter, didn't work with Bush Sr. and WON'T WORK NOW!! - GX The Anti-Demican Anti-Republicrat Libertarian

Oh wait I thought I left off Bush 1.0, damn somebody can't read and understand, sounds like a double whammy, no Big Bucks for you!!

- GX
The Anti-Demican Anti-Republicrat Libertarian

Solitair -

You are correct. The fear of what would follow the vacuum in Iraq should Saddam be taken out was a concern cited by Bush 1.0 at the time.

Cheers,
Daiwa

My bad on the presidents thing Grim. I meant the carter and bush thing. but your logic is still weak. Beirut? TWA? Were talking IRAQ here. Whos the ones killing soldiers? Hamas? i think not. Islamic Jihad? Nope! Try Muqtada al Sadr and his shia militias, and Al Qaida and /or Al Qaida backed terror groups! Lets not get too far off subject here folks, the post is about bush 2.0 and what i feel is how he lied to the american public about the reasoning for the 2nd Iraq war. Not hypothesis about what we would have faced if we had done the job in 1990.

And Dr.? The only reason i deleted your post was because of your childish comment about John Kerry. I don't mind profanity on my blog, but when its a derogatory comment like that, i reserve the right to delete it. I rarely censor anyone on my blog wether i like what they have to say or not. But you seem to think you have the right to act like a moron on other peoples blogs? Do it on your own..

And i can take plenty of heat. I do it all the time on JU. I actually enjoy the reparte' with the right. I just think its a waste of time to do it with people who can only sink to the bottom level when they have no legitimate arguement and act like they're in high school. Grow up, get a clue, and if you don't like what i do with my own blog...Don't read it! It's just that simple!

I like to think that those on the right on JU are intelligent, thoughtful types who have valid points to make. And for the most part it holds true. I have battled with (examples) Drag and Baker on many occassions, and even though i don't agree with them, i admit they are both intelligent and believe in their cause. I respect that. I look foreward to seeing them post in my blogs and like sparring with them. What i don't like is when sombody (not particularly you either DR, but anyone) who comes into my blog and acts like that. I don't do it in yours, out of respect to your beliefs. If you want to comment and make valid arguements like you have in the past, i have no reason to censor you in any way. In fact i have deleted quite a few entries from folks on the left who behave in the same manner.

End of story

Nope! Try Muqtada al Sadr and his shia militias, and Al Qaida and /or Al Qaida backed terror groups!

Hmm, I wonder why Sadr is killing US troops, could it be because he wants power? No not that, and his predecessor in '91 would have done the same; no way they wouldn't do that (IRAN)? No these religious leaders don't want power, whether we helped them yesterday or today there is no way this leaders would have fought the US to gain power in Iraq, and that is what we should beLIEve!

Seriously though 'all power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely' (thank Eric Blair for that quote).

- GX

I agree with you on the shiite leaders beliefs as far as current times go, but back in 1990's they were being slaughtered by the thousands by Saddam. We pulled a Bay of Pigs on them. We convinced them to uprise, and we would have their backs. When the time came, we abandoned them. To say they don't begrudge us just a little bit is just naive. Which is why i say we should have taken Saddam out in 1990, at least the Shia moderates would have been a hell of a lot more supportive then, as opposed to how they are behaving now.

Still think Saddam had WMD's? By: thatoneguyinslc Posted: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 on The dark side of the road Message Board: Politics I was reading my complimentary copy of USA Today at the hotel this morning and found this little nugget of info. Now bush 2.0's own people are contradicting him. Link thanks for reading, Thatoneguyinslc

Actually I do and always have.

UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after World Tribune Friday, June 11, 2004 The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003. The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission briefed the Security Council on new findings that could help trace the whereabouts of Saddam's missile and WMD program. The briefing contained satellite photographs that demonstrated the speed with which Saddam dismantled his missile and WMD sites before and during the war. Council members were shown photographs of a ballistic missile site outside Baghdad in May 2003, and then saw a satellite image of the same location in February 2004, in which facilities had disappeared. UNMOVIC acting executive chairman Demetrius Perricos told the council on June 9 that "the only controls at the borders are for the weight of the scrap metal, and to check whether there are any explosive or radioactive materials within the scrap," Middle East Newsline reported. "It's being exported," Perricos said after the briefing. "It's being traded out. And there is a large variety of scrap metal from very new to very old, and slowly, it seems the country is depleted of metal." "The removal of these materials from Iraq raises concerns with regard to proliferation risks," Perricos told the council. Perricos also reported that inspectors found Iraqi WMD and missile components shipped abroad that still contained UN inspection tags. Director of Central Intelligence, National Intelligence Estimate, Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, October 2002 The estimate concluded that Iraq continued its weapons of mass destruction programs despite U.N. resolutions and sanctions and that it was in possession of chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges exceeding U.N. imposed limits. In addition, it was judged that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program and, if left unchecked, would probably have a nuclear weapon before the end of the decade - assuming it had to produce the fissile material indigenously. If Iraq could acquire sufficient fissile material from abroad it could construct a nuclear weapon within several months to a year, the estimate reported. Iraq said to have mobile weapons labs (Reuters) - February 1 2003 15:14 BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany's secret service has information that Iraq is developing weapons in mobile laboratories disguised as ordinary goods vehicles, a magazine has said. Focus weekly said on Saturday opposition MPs were urging the government to publish the information or at least make it available to fellow members on the United Nations Security Council who may be required to vote soon on possible military action against Iraq. Focus said Germany's BND intelligence service informed members of the parliamentary commission on foreign affairs about the mobile laboratories in November. Some parts for the laboratories came from suppliers in Germany, the BND said. Finally, from Senator Kerry himself (October 9, 2002) It is clear that in the 4 years since the UNSCOM inspectors were forced out, Saddam Hussein has continued his quest for weapons of mass destruction. According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 kilometer restriction imposed by the United Nations in the ceasefire resolution. Although Iraq's chemical weapons capability was reduced during the UNSCOM inspections, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort over the last 4 years. Evidence suggests that it has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard gas, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX. According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons. The more difficult question to answer is when Iraq could actually achieve this goal. That depends on is its ability to acquire weapons-grade fissile material. If Iraq could acquire this material from abroad, the CIA estimates that it could have a nuclear weapon within 1 year.

This is quoted from T B who found the answer I was seeking.

You can find facts to justify anything you want to believe. The truth is that there were NO WMD's. You need to accept that and move on.

Reply #47 By: thatoneguyinslc - 10/20/2004 8:53:25 AM You can find facts to justify anything you want to believe. The truth is that there were NO WMD's. You need to accept that and move on.

So basically your saying the UN inspectors lied, right?

Nope, not at all Dr.

I think they really didnt have a clue either way. I think Saddam was hiding all kinds of stuff, but WMD's weren't on the list. I think he was more concerned with them not finding out where the oil money was really going.

Reply #49 By: thatoneguyinslc - 10/20/2004 6:49:42 PM Nope, not at all Dr. I think they really didnt have a clue either way. I think Saddam was hiding all kinds of stuff, but WMD's weren't on the list. I think he was more concerned with them not finding out where the oil money was really going.

See I really don't get this at all. Everyone else is saying the UN inspectors this and the UN inspectors that as long as it's against Bush. But when I point out something that supports Bush, then the UN inspectors don't have a clue. I'm beginning to believe that some people around here don't have a clue.