Draginol Draginol

Why did go into Iraq again?

▼

Why did go into Iraq again?

Oh yea..

from JoeUser Forums

One thing that is both amusing and frustrating about the left in the United States is the claim that we went into Iraq mainly because of WMD.  That this was the only real justification for going into Iraq.  Left-wing comedians like to make a lot of noise on this.  John Stewart on the Daily Show, like many left wingers uses the "I'll make a snarky one liner to make the other side look stupid even though it's a strawman argument".

Here is the resolution that congress voted on:

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated; Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `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';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled

--

If more left-wingers got their information from..you know..the origninal sources instead of ideological websites or left-wing media analysis, there would be less confusion on this.

politics
23,018 views 65 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh.

Will you guys stop with the stupid "lol liberal media" shit already? Especially attacking Jon Stewart, which is like attacking Iraq during a War on Terr- oops.


I see you only listed quotes made by Repbulicans. I guess you forgot these.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others


"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
Reply #27 from PolMach Forums Top
Name them and provide reliable Intel to back up your claim. I guess Suicide bombers (Hello???? $25k per bomb?) is just good practical joking.


the 9/11 commission. the suicide bombers are there after the war. there are now probably ties to Al Quaida, there were, according to the commission, only tenuous ties at best at the time we declared war.
Multiplicity - Control multiple PCs using one keyboard and mouse
Reply #28 from PolMach Forums Top
you can talk all you want about Democrats agreeing that there were WMDs, but who gave them that information. the same administration that may have cooked the information to bring about the result the administration wanted.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
c'mon now, you have to understand whoman -- republicans are always right and democrats are always wrong

even when they say the same things
Reply #31 from PolMach Forums Top
you can talk all you want about Democrats agreeing that there were WMDs, but who gave them that information. the same administration that may have cooked the information to bring about the result the administration wanted.


You Mean Clinton did that? OMG! SHOCK! I did not realize that he Cooked the information! Was that before or after the aspirin factory in Sudan, and the cigar in Monica?
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
For the Bush lied crowd: Don't forget these people who said there were WMD in Iraq:
Al Gore
Barbara Boxer
John Kerry
Bill Clinton
Hillary Clinton
Tom Daschle
Jay Rockefeller
and on and on....everyone believed based on the best intelligence and Saddam's actions that there were WMD...and there may have been some moved. The programs to produce them were not eliminated. Saddam did not cooperate with the inspectors, he continued to violate the UN resolutions, and why not, with so many countries violating the sanctions and giving him arms and money?

But they were NOT the only reason for the war.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #32 By: Matt (Anonymous) - 1/20/2005 1:27:59 PM
For the Bush lied crowd: Don't forget these people who said there were WMD in Iraq:
Al Gore
Barbara Boxer
John Kerry
Bill Clinton
Hillary Clinton
Tom Daschle
Jay Rockefeller
and on and on....everyone believed based on the best intelligence and Saddam's actions that there were WMD...and there may have been some moved. The programs to produce them were not eliminated. Saddam did not cooperate with the inspectors, he continued to violate the UN resolutions, and why not, with so many countries violating the sanctions and giving him arms and money?

But they were NOT the only reason for the war.


Now, now. Don't go confusing the left with facts. It'll just make their heads hurt.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
What this country needs is a good civil war. The South must be put down once again. I've seen the war on poverty, the war on drugs, and now the war on terrorism; what this country needs is the war on religion. Religion is the problem period, it is pure evil.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
I love that "support" explaination, while rhetoric, media enhanced rhetoric, and troop engagement represent the action as a "War"! Was there a congressonal declaration of war? The administration can barely get 50% from polling on this issue, but bases it legacy on WMd and fighting terrorists. This action is not the means justifing the ends, but the might making right. And mabye so, but the represintation to the public and advancement of the specific cause is not well explained to the public .Crysal bowls and flair I see, body bags from action be, christian souls are lost to family. Democracy fought honorably, but pretense is most deniably!. Ms. Rice is quite the spokesman, admiraly. But no Man makes right fallacy.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top

What this country needs is a good civil war. The South must be put down once again. I've seen the war on poverty, the war on drugs, and now the war on terrorism; what this country needs is the war on religion. Religion is the problem period, it is pure evil.

 

Attitudes like this is the pure evil.

Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
*smirk*

I love the response "well, the left thought so toooooo"

it's really quite junior high
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top

Jay Rockefeller
and on and on....everyone believed based on the best intelligence and Saddam's actions that there were WMD...and there may have been some moved. The programs to produce them were not eliminated. Saddam did not cooperate with the inspectors, he continued to violate the UN resolutions, and why not, with so many countries violating the sanctions and giving him arms and money?

But they were NOT the only reason for the war.


Of course, what of the Walbergs? the whole deviation from international economic standards have killed the idea of basic knowledge of curent affaires and have allowed the media to dictate the adgenda.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
you can talk all you want about Democrats agreeing that there were WMDs, but who gave them that information. the same administration that may have cooked the information to bring about the result the administration wanted.


Some of those quotes were from before Bush was in office. And there is no evidence that any information was "cooked".


What this country needs is a good civil war. The South must be put down once again. I've seen the war on poverty, the war on drugs, and now the war on terrorism; what this country needs is the war on religion. Religion is the problem period, it is pure evil.


And who is going to do that?

Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #37 By: Myrrander - 1/20/2005 2:32:15 PM
*smirk*

I love the response "well, the left thought so toooooo"


So what? Does that make both sides ignorant?
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top

“Like other members, I was particularly influenced by your views about Iraq’s nuclear intentions" Rep. Harry Waxman, writing to Bush why he voted for the war.

"if Saddam Hussein were to take his weapons of mass destruction and transfer them, either use them himself, or transfer them to the Al-Qaeda, and somehow the Al-Qaeda were to engage in an attack on the United States, or an attack on U.S. forces overseas, with a weapon of mass destruction you’re not talking about 300, or 3,000 people potentially being
killed, but 30,000, or 100,000 . . . human beings.” Rummy, scaremongering.

(Saddam Hussein) “is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.” Bush, before congressional vote on war

"“[t]he regime has the scientists and facilities to build nuclear weapons and is
seeking the materials required to do so. - Bush, 2002

"“we know he has been absolutely devoted totrying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” Cheney. He made this statement just three days before the war. He did not admit until September 14, 2003, that his statement was wrong and that he “did misspeak.”

"President Bush and others portrayed the threat of Saddam Hussein waging nuclear
war against the United States or its allies as one of the most urgent reasons for
preemptively attacking Iraq. Administration officials used evocative language
and images. On the eve of congressional votes on the Iraq war resolution, for
example, President Bush stated: “Knowing these realities, America must not
ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot
wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a
mushroom cloud.” - Congressional Report

“[i]t was not a reconstituted, full-blown nuclear program...As best as has
been determined . . . in 2000 they had decided that their nuclear establishment had
deteriorated to such point that it was totally useless.” - Dr. Kay, special advisor to Iraq survey group. His conclusion was that there was “no doubt at all” that Iraq had less of an ability to produce fissile material in 2001 than in 1991. According to Dr. Kay, the nuclear program had
been “seriously degraded” and the “activities of the inspectors in the early ‘90s did a tremendous amount."

"“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. . . . Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.” - Bush, State of Union. The CIA sent two memos to the National Security Council — one of which was addressed to Ms. Rice personally —
warning against including the claim in a speech by the President. Central Intelligence George Tenet also “argued personally” to Ms. Rice’s deputy national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, “that the allegation should not be used”

“There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has — or will — establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.” - Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Sept. 2002 Report, months before contradictory claims were made. It's bullshit that Bush was parroting bad info; many of the claims (nukes, WMD, Al-Quaeda, etc.) of the Bush Admin. went against the advice of the CIA, DIA etc.

"“We lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq’s WMD programs.” October 2002 NIE, read by Bush

“There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has — or will — establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.” DIA, Sept. 2002, well before the Iraq war began

"“there is no doubt in our mind that he still has chemical weapons stocks.” Powell, contradicting intelligence cited above.

“He has at this moment stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.” - Rummy, ditto.

“Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be
used to disperse chemical or biological weapons.” - Bush

“UAVs are well suited for dispensing chemical and biological weapons. There is ample evidence that Iraq has dedicated much effort to developing and testing spray devices that
could be adapted for UAVs.” Powell, scaremongering at the UN assembly

“(I voted) precisely because of the administration’s UAV evidence....I was told not only that [Hussein had weapons of mass destruction] and that he had the means to deliver them through unmanned aerial vehicles, but that he had the capability of transporting those UAVs outside of Iraq" Sen. Bill Nelosn, explaining why he voted for the war.

"(the U.S. Air Force) does not agree that Iraq is developing UAVs primarily intended to be delivery platforms for chemical and biological (CBW) agents...[t]he small size of Iraq’s new UAV strongly suggests a primary role of reconnaissance.” - The US Air Force

“the most compelling to me was the unmanned aerial vehicle and the development of that
with spray tanks. And he kind of laid down the fact that this could be in our country and there was a possibility that this might be used against the United States.” Sen. Dianne Feinstein, explaining why she voted for the war.

Dr. Kay's assesment: (Iraq’s UAV program) “was not a strong point because it was only “theoretically possible” to have “snuck one of those on a ship off the East Coast of the United States that might have been able to deliver a small amount someplace.” In his assessment, there was no “existing deployment capability at that point for any sort of systematic military attack.

"(We have)low confidence...whether in desperation Saddam would share chemical or biological weapons with Al Qa’ida.” NIE, before Iraq war started

“Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger cause for making war.” NIE, same

“Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and al-Qa’ida is evolving and is
based on sources of varying reliability." CIA director George Tenet, October 2002. At this time, many analysts believed that Mr.Bin Laden saw Mr. Hussein as one of the corrupt secular Arab leaders who should be toppled.

"It’s troubling to have classified information that contradicts statements made by the administration,” Sen. Richard Durbin, fall 2002 hearings "There’s more they should share with
the public" Durbin would not be more specific, but he did say the committee had received the views of some analysts who do not share the administration’s conclusion that Iraq was an urgent threat with important links to al-Qaeda terrorists.

"A]nalysts at the C.I.A. . . . believed that the evidence showed some contacts between Baghdad and the terrorist organization, but not an operational alliance" NY Times

Despite the doubts of many intelligence analysts in 2002, Bush regularly asserted that there was a close relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. In his January 28, 2003, State of the Union address, President Bush stated: “Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without
fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or
help them develop their own.” This contradicts the best information of the intelligence agencies at the time he said it.

"Because of the gravity of the subject and the President’s unique access to classified information, members of Congress and the public expect the President and his senior officials to take special care to be balanced and accurate in describing national security threats. It does not appear, however, that President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice met this standard in the case of Iraq." Congressional Report






















Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top

So what? Does that make both sides ignorant?


To the ignorant, everyone is ignorant, because they just dont understand anything.

Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
To the ignorant, everyone is ignorant, because they just dont understand anything.


well, at least I know the source of your views now
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
the 9/11 commission concluded that Iraq's ties to terrorism were tenuous at best.


they concluded that Iraq had no direct ties to the act of terrorism on 9/11.
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
Holy crap some people are just amazing in their reasoning.
The administration gave a multitude of reasons to invade Iraq, including WMD's.
Every legitimate intelligence agency in the world, including the French and Germans, thought IRaq had WMD's.
It has not been proven that Iraq DID NOT have WMD's, just that they aren't there now.
Conclusion? Perhaps the weapons wern't there. Perhaps they were. We may never know. But regardless, the world was unified in it's intelligence, either right or wrong. And in todays day and age, you've got to act on that kind of intelligence, because the only concrete information you might actually receive is a several kiloton bomb going off in Washington DC>

And yeah, we are looking at Iran and North Korea. Peering very hard their direction...
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top

Anyone ever notice that Whereas is quite possibly the most incorrectly overused word in government language?

On subject, yes, the bill did give other reasons for going to war, but as the courts use outside material to understand what the heck a law actually means, so to do the people use the actual quotes given by other people, such as those listed above, to determine what the heck we were doing in Iraq.

Having said that, both sides need to do less looking at whacko conspiracy websites which declare Kerry a Commie sympathizer and Bush an AWOL coke addict.  Read the law, watch the news and don't trust anyone.

Cheers

Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top

On subject, yes, the bill did give other reasons for going to war, but as the courts use outside material to understand what the heck a law actually means, so to do the people use the actual quotes given by other people, such as those listed above, to determine what the heck we were doing in Iraq.

Oh, you mean these quotes?

Reply By: Action Donkey(Anonymous User)Posted: Thursday, January 20, 2005

Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
DeadZombie - 'Every legitimate intelligence agency in the world, including the French and Germans, thought IRaq had WMD's.' Even American intelligence had serious doubts about the existence of WMD and clearly communicated this to the Bush Admin well before they started selling the war.

The assertion that Bush was parroting bad intel is false and I can prove it. Take your pick of the many "reasons" for going to war - WMD, Al-Quaeda, nukes, imminent threat of terrorism, and in each case the claims of the Administration conflicted with existing intelligence that had been communicated to cabinet.

Proof that the repeated claims of proof of WMD, nukes, terrorism, and Al-Quaeda ties by the Bush Aminstration contradicted existing American intelligence:

On WMD: “There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has — or will — establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.” - Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Sept. 2002 Report, months before contradictory claims were made.

And: "“We lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq’s WMD programs.” October 2002 NIE

On nukes: Cheney himself months later admitted he "mispoke" when he said “we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” It's OK for me or you to say we 'believe' that Iraq has nukes, but when the VP offers this 'opinion' just before the vote on Iraq - despite intelligence to the contrary - it is misleading and a gross abuse of public trust.

And: "[t]he regime has the scientists and facilities to build nuclear weapons and is
seeking the materials required to do so" Bush, 2002. He states this as FACT with no qualifier, but subsequent events and inspections prove that this is not true. While there was much speculation, at no time did any intel agency give Bush information that Iraq had a viable nuclear program and the inspections in Iraq at the time of the statement found no evidence of a nuke program.

On UAVs: "(the U.S. Air Force) does not agree that Iraq is developing UAVs primarily intended to be delivery platforms for chemical and biological (CBW) agents...[t]he small size of Iraq’s new UAV strongly suggests a primary role of reconnaissance.”

On Al-Quaeda: "(We have)low confidence...whether in desperation Saddam would share chemical or biological weapons with Al Qa’ida.” NIE, before Iraq war started

And: “Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and al-Qa’ida is evolving and is
based on sources of varying reliability." CIA director George Tenet, October 2002. At this time, many analysts believed that Mr.Bin Laden saw Mr. Hussein as one of the corrupt secular Arab leaders who should be toppled.

On Iraq as an imminent threat: “Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger cause for making war.” NIE, 2002

All further posts using any of the above 'reasons' as jus ad bellum, or saying that Bush & Co. were parroting bad info are hereby declared null and void.
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top

Since Dr. Guy's comment made about as much sense as wool socks in Texas in August, I will say nothing more about it than this, you are clearly ignorant of my position on the war, so I will spell it out as follows.

I believe the war in Iraq was justified, WMDs or not, I am an avowed liberal.  Some may believe that these two things are untenable, but it's the truth.   My arguement with the Bush administration is on their performance during the war.  Rumsfeld's comment about going to war with the army you have is correct, I don't think that the Bush administration has done enough however to give us the Army we would want.  The Army continues to be undersupplied as far as armored vehicles and other things go, something I feel should have been corrected long ago.  Or, if it were impossible to correct completely, a larger effort should have been made to get these things done.

Some might say, "Democrats blocked bills designed to do that", but I am just as capable of looking at the math as anyone else, and I know that the majority needed to get those bills through the house existed in the hands of republicans.  That of course means that if the bills were blocked, and by some miracle, all the democrats voted against them, then some republicans must have too.

Anyway, I also oppose the Bush administration on various important social issues, and I for one resent that so many on both parties claim that my (as a democrat) only reason for not liking Bush is because of the war.