Another Lie on the War in Iraq

[Blackadar]

Not a good week for the Bush Administration.

The sh*t already hit the fan this week over the lie on Iraq supposedly tying to buy nukes from an African nation.

Now, it's followed up by the intelligence community saying that the Bush administration lied about ties between Al Quada and Iraq. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...-alqaeda_x.htm

At least Clinton's BJ didn't get American soliders killed.

[EagleFan]

Mogadishu (sp?) anyone?

[JeffNights]

Originally posted by EagleFan
Mogadishu (sp?) anyone?

Right on Eagle, Right on.

[EagleFan]

So the terrorists are saying there is no link, well it must be true.

Was he involved with 9/11, most likely not.

Has he ever been involved with them? Well, let's quote the article "The relationships that were plotted were episodic, not continuous" That confirms that there have been plotted relationships at some points, just because he wasn't going to the al-Qaeda 'company picnic' on a regular basis doesn't mean there hasn't been some sort of tie.

Was this part of the 'war on teror'? Who cares. It was about enforcing a UN mandate. If it helpd disable some terrorist activity in the process, that's just a plus.

Basic idea. He was told to comply with the demands, he didn't, he had to face the consequences. To make this a little simpler: Take a murder suspect held up in a house with the police giving him warnings to come out peacefully or they will be forced to enter. Maybe after a 12 year standoff that suspect might not take their demands too seriously anymore. By then the liberals would be saying, just let him stay in there and the French would be working out some sort of book deal with him in an attempt to negotiate letting him walk free.

[BreizhManu]

Originally posted by EagleFan
To make this a little simpler: Take a murder suspect held up in a house with the police giving him warnings to come out peacefully or they will be forced to enter.

only problem is that the ones entering aren't the police but some kind of militia.

[kcchief19]

Originally posted by EagleFan
Mogadishu (sp?) anyone?

I assume that you are attempting to somehow link Somalia with Clinton getting a blow job, based on this response to Blackie's post. Should I bother pointing out that not did the two incidents take place years apart, but that it was George Bush I who sent troops into Somalia without an exit strategy. Clinton was left trying to figure out how to get out and make it work.

The lack of a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda is obvious. According to the world view espoused by bin Laden, Hussein and the U.S. are two peas of a pod -- both of us soil his religious fanaticsm.

So, we know we didn't go into Iraq for humanitarian reasons, because if we did we would already be going into Liberia. We didn't go into Iraq because of the war on terrorism, because there was no link between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Both were given as reasons for war by the Bush Administration, but the revisionists have forgotten that.

So we are clinging to the reason for war was to disarm Hussein of weapons that he may very well have not had. I'm sure that will be a comfort to all the families who lost their sons and daughters in Iraq.

[Swaggs]

These threads are comical to me.

I have come to believe that no matter what, people will believe that Clinton lying about his adultery is more damaging to the United States than Reagan (Iran Cotnra), Bush 1 (No New Taxes!), and now Bush Jr. (WMD! and Iraq being a threat) and their lies.

[EagleFan]

I was pointing out that troops got killed on Clinton's watch. The blow job has no place in the arguement. I can argue that about anything.

No-one got killed because Bush brushed his teeth. No-one got killed because Clinton jogged. No-one got killed because Reagan took a dump. Hey it's easy making a winable arguement like that.

I bet more people got killed because of Saddam gassing the Kurds han because Clinton got a blow job. Hey, there's a winable arguement too. It's fun when you can just make a comparison that there is no possible way to lose.

[Killebrew]

Originally posted by EagleFan
It's fun when you can just make a comparison that there is no possible way to lose.

Sorry, there is zero about this mess that is fun.

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by Blackadar
Not a good week for the Bush Administration.

The sh*t already hit the fan this week over the lie on Iraq supposedly tying to buy nukes from an African nation.

You mean this? http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artma...cle_2529.shtml

[Dutch]

No link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq?

What fueled funding for Al-Qaeda? (US Troops in Saudi Arabia)

Why did the Al Qaeda strike on 9/11? (US Troops in Saudi Arabia)

What about the USS Cole bombing? (US Troops in Saudi Arabia)

The African embassy bombings? (US Troops in Saudi Arabia)

What was holding us back from leaving Saudi Arabia? (12 years of sanctions on Iraq.)

What would stop those sanctions? (Either cooperation by Saddam Hussein or military action against him.)

Usama bin Laden did not like Saddam Hussein. UBL went so far as to prepare for a holy war against Saddam to hold off 'Christians' from entering the land of the 2-holy cities to which he was ultimately turned down.

So now we have this rich, stubborn, selfish child of a man (UBL) who can't get his way has started to create the Al Qaeda into a global operation. He's angry at Saudi Arabia, he's angry at Saddam Hussein, he's already angry at Israel. Now the US is "occupying his" land, supporting the Israeli's, and they are NOT removing Saddam Hussein from power while Iraqi's (or better yet, Muslims) are dying by the thousands under Saddam's reign in Iraq.

He's got thousands of supporters, millions of dollars, and hundreds of "martyrs". What do you *think* Al Qaeda was going to do and continue to do?

Was not removing Saddam Hussein from power and announcing the removal of troops from Saudi Arabia a warranted, problem solving move?

Are you suggesting that a couple of false statements far outweigh the hundreds of true statements? The President of the US gets his information from 14 or 15 agencies, he didn't go to Africa to see Iraqi's buying uranium. He was given the information, by the same guys who would have given it to Bill Clinton had he decided the time to act was during his tenure.

It's a sad, sad world we live in, sometimes.

Do I want to see US Soldiers die in Iraq? Hell, friggin' no. But I thank them for making a difference in this world so that we can live a little safer in our homes. Suggesting that we should have continued to rest and turn a blind eye to the storm that was growing in the middle east is irresponsible to the citizens of our country.

So to our government, I say, don't ever let crap like this fester again, but thank you for finally having it check out and continue working hard to fix it.

[clintl]

On Somalia:

1) US troops were committed there by Bush I in the waning days of his presidency. Clinton inherited that mess.

2) As far as I can remember, Clinton never lied about why we are there.

3) Somalia did not go as badly as US intervention in Lebanon did in the early years of the Reagan Administration. (You remember the car bomb that killed a couple hundred US troops in Lebanon, right?)

Somalia was a failure, but I don't see any similarities between what Clinton did, and Bush II's lies about Iraq.

[NoMyths]

Originally posted by Dutch
So to our government, I say, don't ever let crap like this fester again, but thank you for finally having it check out and continue working hard to fix it.

Not a shot at the rest of your post, which is well written--I think we share similar viewpoints in many ways. But I know that I speak for a lot of Americans when I say the period for grieving for our government's behavior hasn't ended yet. It kind of bothers me when people take a "whew, glad that's over with; let's get back to business" attitude about a situation that is not yet cold...unlike the millions of Iraqis without power or water.

Is the situation over there better than before we attacked? No, not really...not until the basic infrastructure of the country can be restored (e.g. a working police force). I think we're working on it, and that it will get better in many ways...but I also know that when the administration proclaims Iraq the success of freedom while the country's citizens are under the gun of foreign troops, we're being told what we want to hear. Not what we have to hear.

[MrBug708]

Didn't Clinton attack that Asprin pharmacy in Libya on his Grand Jury date? He also pissed off the Chinese by blowing up their embassy with a cruise missle

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by MrBug708
Didn't Clinton attack that Asprin pharmacy in Libya on his Grand Jury date? He also pissed off the Chinese by blowing up their embassy with a cruise missle

Yea, well Reagan dropped bombs on the French embassy in Lybia. Rightfully so, in my book.

[MrBug708]

Must........resisit......French......comment.....

[scc27]

Well said Dutch!!!!

[Blackadar]

Was not removing Saddam Hussein from power and announcing the removal of troops from Saudi Arabia a warranted, problem solving move?

Oh yes, overthrowing the government of Iraq, getting US soldiers killed and moving them from sitting in Saudi to govering their asses in Iraq was a wonderful solution.

Yes, my comment is sarcastic and over the top, but I fail to see why this is a great solution.

Are you suggesting that a couple of false statements far outweigh the hundreds of true statements? The President of the US gets his information from 14 or 15 agencies, he didn't go to Africa to see Iraqi's buying uranium.

Actually, what's been said is that Bush's White House folks (and likely George himself) knew these were lies and used them as excuses to go to war. All the White House press releases smack of the old Potomac Two Step.

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by Blackadar
Actually, what's been said is that Bush's White House folks (and likely George himself) knew these were lies and used them as excuses to go to war. All the White House press releases smack of the old Potomac Two Step.

Did you actually read the article I linked to? The guy who wrote the original "White House knew they were lies" admitted he was conned and his source was a fake.

[tangent]Even if the allegations were true (which is certainly unlikely now) it was one line in one speech. Why do the Democrats keep harping on that and the build-up to the War in Iraq when there are plenty of real issues, such as close ties w/Saudi Arabia, loss of Civil Liberties under the Patriot Act and other domestic problems they could be using to attack the administration?[/tangent]

[AZSpeechCoach]

All I know is that the Weekly World News has a front page story that says that Osama and Saddam are lovers. They are hiding in a cave together and engaging in sodomy. That's a good enough link for me.

[CamEdwards]

Blackie,

In addition to the retracted story from Capitol Hill Blue that's already been posted, here are a couple of other links you might find interesting.

Iraqi Group Claims Al-Queda Ties

Document Links Saddam, bin Laden

For background information on the author of the second article, you might want to visit Instapundit . Glenn Reynolds clerked under the author, who's a lifelong Democrat.

[sabotai]

"For background information on the author of the second article, you might want to visit Instapundit . Glenn Reynolds clerked under the author, who's a lifelong Democrat."

Ahhh, so suddenly a democrat is reliable when he writes about something you support?

[Bonegavel]

Aren't the British still claiming that the Africa-Nuke thing is true?

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by sabotai
"For background information on the author of the second article, you might want to visit Instapundit . Glenn Reynolds clerked under the author, who's a lifelong Democrat."

Ahhh, so suddenly a democrat is reliable when he writes about something you support?

I think you know what I was getting at. By the way, here's another column about the Iraq/Al-Queda link.

The Al-Queda Connection, Continued

[Dutch]

Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.

That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

Wednesday, December 16, 1998

Now there's one Democrat that I agree with!

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by Blackadar
Not a good week for the Bush Administration.

The sh*t already hit the fan this week over the lie on Iraq supposedly tying to buy nukes from an African nation.

That was a lie? Huh. I thought Dubya told us that British intelligence indicated this was true. And British intelligence this week still stands by that claim. So where is the lie?

[Dutch]

I think Blackie was talking about the BIG lie.

You know, that Iraq never disobeyed the 1991 cease-fire agreement, followed all 16 UN Resolutions to full compliance within days of the end of the first Gulf War, and that Saddam was basically an all around 'let's have a beer and watch the game' type of good guy.

[NoMyths]

Originally posted by Dutch
I think Blackie was talking about the BIG lie.

You know, that Iraq never disobeyed the 1991 cease-fire agreement, followed all 16 UN Resolutions to full compliance within days of the end of the first Gulf War, and that Saddam was basically an all around 'let's have a beer and watch the game' type of good guy.

Nah, I think he's talking about the BIG BIG lie.

You know, that invading Iraq, blowing a hell of a lot of stuff up--including access to water and power for over a million Iraqi citizens--then rebuilding the oil infrastructure before restoring basic human services, letting all those weapons of mass destruction (assuming they exist, which was our primary reason for going to war since they were such an immediate threat) go from being watched by the CIA to performing a disappearing act into the hands of who knows what worldwide nutjobs, then passing the buck on a faked reason for war to an ally all made America safer.

[Fritz]

[aquavit]

The organization of retired intelligence workers are calling for Cheney's resignation. This administration is an embarassment.

[Drake]

Originally posted by NoMyths
You know, that invading Iraq, blowing a hell of a lot of stuff up--including access to water and power for over a million Iraqi citizens--then rebuilding the oil infrastructure before restoring basic human services...

I think it would make sense to get the oil infrastructure up and running as quickly as possible so that the oil (which is Iraqi property) could be sold on world markets so that the rest of the infrastructure build-up could be paid for by Iraqi dollars rather than U.S. taxpayers. It's hard to build infrastructure without the funds to pay for the materials.

Not to mention, NM, you're being a bit disingenuous here. One of the big stories coming out of the war was how great a job U.S. special forces had done in protecting the oil fields from damage during the war. I suspect there was very little oil infrastructure repair that had to be done.