Conservatives not sure what to do about good news on Iran

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Bush was right to take out Saddam. I only hope he does the right thing and bombs Iran before he goes.

He wasn't. He violated international law and got tens of thousands of innocent people killed - including more Americans than were killed on 9/11. He's got their blood on his hands and he will be judged for that. As for Iran, I don't think so. You can't be serious about that statement of yours. If you think that Iran would be remotely as "easy" a target as Iraq, you're gravely mistaken. The world and along with it this country would go to shite in a second if Bush's and the Bushies' insanity and blood thirst gets the upper hand on this one.

He was right. The thousands of people that got killed were because of Iran and the weapons they were giving to the terrorists. If it were not for Iran we would have been out of Iraq a long time ago. I truly hope that we bomb the hell out of Iran's military sooner rather than later. It is right and I want to see it happen.

Violating the law is not right, Gary. You usually subscribe to that principle. Why the diversion?

[GaryC 7]

Bush was right to take out Saddam. I only hope he does the right thing and bombs Iran before he goes.

He wasn't. He violated international law and got tens of thousands of innocent people killed - including more Americans than were killed on 9/11. He's got their blood on his hands and he will be judged for that. As for Iran, I don't think so. You can't be serious about that statement of yours. If you think that Iran would be remotely as "easy" a target as Iraq, you're gravely mistaken. The world and along with it this country would go to shite in a second if Bush's and the Bushies' insanity and blood thirst gets the upper hand on this one.

He was right. The thousands of people that got killed were because of Iran and the weapons they were giving to the terrorists. If it were not for Iran we would have been out of Iraq a long time ago. I truly hope that we bomb the hell out of Iran's military sooner rather than later. It is right and I want to see it happen.

Violating the law is not right, Gary. You usually subscribe to that principle. Why the diversion?

He didn't break the law. Congress gave him the athority to go in. The war was lawful.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Right because Saddam was a menace to the world. Right because he was thumbing his nose at the mandate to disarm. And if you think I am about to attack you then yes you have the right to bomb me.

He was a brutal, rather backward dictator. But as far as being the next Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin - I think thats rather dubious.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Bush was right to take out Saddam. I only hope he does the right thing and bombs Iran before he goes.

Right by what justification? Can i bomb your house because i think its right?

Right because Saddam was a menace to the world. Right because he was thumbing his nose at the mandate to disarm. And if you think I am about to attack you then yes you have the right to bomb me.

By your definition, Bush's a menace to the world (thumbing his nose not merely at a resolution but the very Charter that regulates how nations nowadays interact with one another) and Iran should get busy to bomb the ####### out of the US. They sure have reason to fear an attack. More so than we should fear them attacking us. After all, we just attacked willy-nilly their neighbor four and a half years ago...

What we did was justified and right. Nothing else needs saying.

Justified by what? And right how? It was done without a legal basis and for reasons that did not actually exist. That might make it right and justified in your mind but by all standards I am aware of, it was neither.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Bush was right to take out Saddam. I only hope he does the right thing and bombs Iran before he goes.

He wasn't. He violated international law and got tens of thousands of innocent people killed - including more Americans than were killed on 9/11. He's got their blood on his hands and he will be judged for that. As for Iran, I don't think so. You can't be serious about that statement of yours. If you think that Iran would be remotely as "easy" a target as Iraq, you're gravely mistaken. The world and along with it this country would go to shite in a second if Bush's and the Bushies' insanity and blood thirst gets the upper hand on this one.

He was right. The thousands of people that got killed were because of Iran and the weapons they were giving to the terrorists. If it were not for Iran we would have been out of Iraq a long time ago. I truly hope that we bomb the hell out of Iran's military sooner rather than later. It is right and I want to see it happen.

Violating the law is not right, Gary. You usually subscribe to that principle. Why the diversion?

He didn't break the law. Congress gave him the athority to go in. The war was lawful.

Congress doesn't get to make the decision on whether it is lawful or not. That's like subscribing to the idea that the Mexican government gets to make the decision on whether illegal immigrants from that country should be awarded legal status here. They just don't get to make that decision. Likewise, Congress doesn't make to get the decision on whether the US can lawfully attack another nation - other than in an immediate self-defense scenario which is not what we had before us in either March of 2003 or October of 2002. That decision lies with the UN Security Council. And that body did not authorize the use of force. Hence, there was no lawful basis for that attack.

Edited December 5, 2007 by Mr. Big Dog

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

He didn't break the law. Congress gave him the athority to go in. The war was lawful.

Under US law maybe.

As to why they voted for it, perhaps this offers some explanation.

I, along with nearly every Senator in this Chamber, in that secure

room of this Capitol complex, was not only told there were weapons of

mass destruction--specifically chemical and biological--but I was

looked at straight in the face and told that Saddam Hussein had the

means of delivering those biological and chemical weapons of mass

destruction by unmanned drones, called UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles.

Further, I was looked at straight in the face and told that UAVs could

be launched from ships off the Atlantic coast to attack eastern

seaboard cities of the United States.

Is it any wonder that I concluded there was an imminent peril to the

United States? The first public disclosure of that information occurred

perhaps a couple of weeks later, when the information was told to us.

It was prior to the vote on the resolution and it was in a highly

classified setting in a secure room. But the first public disclosure of

that information was when the President addressed the Nation on TV. He

said that Saddam Hussein possessed UAVs.

Later, the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, in his presentation to

the United Nations, in a very dramatic and effective presentation,

expanded that and suggested the possibility that UAVs could be launched

against the homeland, having been transported out of Iraq. The

information was made public, but it was made public after we had

already voted on the resolution, and at the time there was nothing to

contradict that.

We now know, after the fact and on the basis of Dr. Kay's testimony

today in the Senate Armed Services Committee, that the information was

false; and not only that there were not weapons of mass destruction--

chemical and biological--but there was no fleet of UAVs, unmanned

aerial vehicles, nor was there any capability of putting UAVs on ships

and transporting them to the Atlantic coast and launching them at U.S.

cities on the eastern seaboard.

I am upset that the degree of specificity I was given a year and a

half ago, prior to my vote, was not only inaccurate; it was patently

false. I want some further explanations.

[GaryC 7]

He didn't break the law. Congress gave him the athority to go in. The war was lawful.

Under US law maybe.

As to why they voted for it, perhaps this offers some explanation.

I, along with nearly every Senator in this Chamber, in that secure

room of this Capitol complex, was not only told there were weapons of

mass destruction--specifically chemical and biological--but I was

looked at straight in the face and told that Saddam Hussein had the

means of delivering those biological and chemical weapons of mass

destruction by unmanned drones, called UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles.

Further, I was looked at straight in the face and told that UAVs could

be launched from ships off the Atlantic coast to attack eastern

seaboard cities of the United States.

Is it any wonder that I concluded there was an imminent peril to the

United States? The first public disclosure of that information occurred

perhaps a couple of weeks later, when the information was told to us.

It was prior to the vote on the resolution and it was in a highly

classified setting in a secure room. But the first public disclosure of

that information was when the President addressed the Nation on TV. He

said that Saddam Hussein possessed UAVs.

Later, the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, in his presentation to

the United Nations, in a very dramatic and effective presentation,

expanded that and suggested the possibility that UAVs could be launched

against the homeland, having been transported out of Iraq. The

information was made public, but it was made public after we had

already voted on the resolution, and at the time there was nothing to

contradict that.

We now know, after the fact and on the basis of Dr. Kay's testimony

today in the Senate Armed Services Committee, that the information was

false; and not only that there were not weapons of mass destruction--

chemical and biological--but there was no fleet of UAVs, unmanned

aerial vehicles, nor was there any capability of putting UAVs on ships

and transporting them to the Atlantic coast and launching them at U.S.

cities on the eastern seaboard.

I am upset that the degree of specificity I was given a year and a

half ago, prior to my vote, was not only inaccurate; it was patently

false. I want some further explanations.

Thats just cowardly butt covering by backsliding senators. The world thought Saddam had WMD's and Saddam did nothing to make us think differently. He deserved what he got and we were right to take him out. As for the deaths in Iraq after the takeover those are the fault of the terrorists and more to the point Iran. Without the interferance of Iran we would have a calm Iraq and there would be little if any US presence there.

[GaryC 7]

Key Judgments (from October 2002 NIE)

Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL HOLDS BACKGROUND BRIEFING ON WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ

AS RELEASED BY THE WHITE HOUSE

JULY 18, 2003

We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade. (See INR alternative view at the end of these Key Judgments.)

We judge that we are seeing only a portion of Iraq's WMD efforts, owing to Baghdad's vigorous denial and deception efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information. We lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq's WMD programs.

Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; in the view of most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

Iraq's growing ability to sell oil illicitly increases Baghdad's capabilities to finance WMD programs; annual earnings in cash and goods have more than quadrupled, from $580 million in 1998 to about $3 billion this year.

Iraq has largely rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production.

Baghdad has exceeded UN range limits of 150 km with its ballistic missiles and is working with unmanned aerials vehicles (UAVs), which allow for a more lethal means to deliver biological and, less likely, chemical warfare agents.

Although we assess that Saddam does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them. Most agencies assess that Baghdad started reconstituting its nuclear program about the time that UNSCOM inspectors depart - December 1998.

How quickly Iraq will obtain its first nuclear weapon depends on when it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.

If Baghdad acquires sufficient fissile material from abroad it could make a nuclear weapon within several months to a year.

Without such material from abroad, Iraq probably would not be able to make a weapon until 2007 to 2009, owing to inexperience in building and operating centrifuge facilities to produce highly enriched uranium and challenges in procuring the necessary equipment and expertise.

Most agencies believe that Saddam's personal interest in and Iraq's aggressive attempts to obtain high-strength aluminum tubes for centrifuge rotor - as well as Iraq's attempts to acquire magnets, high-speed balancing machines, and machine tools - provide compelling evidence that Saddam is reconstituting a uranium enrichment effort for Baghdad's nuclear weapons program. (DOE agrees that reconstitution of the nuclear program is underway but assesses that the tubes probably are not part of the program.)

Iraq's efforts to re-establish and enhance its cadre of weapons personnel as well as activities at several suspect nuclear sites further indicate that reconstruction is underway.

All agencies agree that about 25,000 centrifuges based on tubes of the size Iraq is trying to acquire would be capable of producing approximately two weapons' worth of highly enriched uranium per year.

In a much less likely scenario, Baghdad could make enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon by 2005 to 2007 if it obtains suitable centrifuge tubes this year and has all the other materials and technological expertise necessary to build production-scale uranium enrichment facilities.

We assess that Baghdad has begun renewed production of mustard, sarin, GF (cyclosarin), and VX; its capability probably is more limited now than it was at the time of the Gulf War, although VX production and agent storage life probably have been improved.

An array of clandestine reporting reveals that Baghdad has procured covertly the types and quantities of chemicals and equipment sufficient to allow limited CW agent production hidden within Iraq's legitimate chemical industry.

Although we have little specific information on Iraq's CW stockpile, Saddam probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons (MT) and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW agents - much of it added in the last year.

The Iraqis have experience in manufacturing CW bombs, artillery rockets, and projectiles. We assess that that they possess CW bulk fills for SRBM warheads, including for a limited number of covertly stored Scuds, possibly a few with extended ranges.

We judge that all key aspects - R&D, production, and weaponization - of Iraq's offensive BW program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf war.

We judge Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives.

Chances are even that smallpox is part of Iraq's offensive BW program

Baghdad probably has developed genetically engineered BW agents

Baghdad has established a large-scale, redundant, and concealed BW agent production capability.

Baghdad has mobile facilities for producing bacterial and toxin BW agents; these facilities can evade detection and are highly survivable. Within three to six months * these units probably could produce an amount of agent equal to the total that Iraq produced in the years prior to the Gulf War.

Iraq maintains a small missile force and several development programs, including for a UAV probably intended to deliver biological warfare agent.

Gaps in Iraqi accounting to UNSCOM suggest that Saddam retains a covert force of up to a few dozen Scud-variant SRBMs with ranges of 650 to 900 km.

Iraq is deploying its new al-Samoud and Ababil-100 SRBMs, which are capable of flying beyond the UN-authorized 150-km range limit; Iraq has tested an al-Samoud variant beyond 150 km - perhaps as far as 300 km.

Baghdad's UAV's could threaten Iraq's neighbors, US forces in the Persian Gulf, and if brought close to, or into the United States, the US Homeland.

An Iraqi UAV procurement network attempted to procure commercially available route planning software and an associated topographic database that would be able to support targeting of the United States, according to analysis of special intelligence.

The Director, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance, US Air Force, does not agree that Iraq is developing UAVs primarily intended to be delivery platforms for chemical and biological warfare (CBW) agents. The small size of Iraq's new UAV strongly suggests a primary role of reconnaissance, although CBW delivery is an inherent capability.

Iraq is developing medium-range ballistic missile capabilities, largely through foreign assistance in building specialized facilities, including a test stand for engines more powerful than those in its current missile force.

We have low confidence in our ability to assess when Saddam would use WMD.

Saddam could decide to use chemical and biological warfare (CBW) preemptively against US forces, friends, and allies in the region in an attempt to disrupt US war preparations and undermine the political will of the Coalition.

Saddam might use CBW after an initial advance into Iraqi territory, but early use of WMD could foreclose diplomatic options for stalling the US advance.

He probably would use CBW when he perceived he irretrievably had lost control of the military and security situation, but we are unlikely to know when Saddam reaches that point.

We judge that Saddam would be more likely to use chemical weapons than biological weapons on the battlefield.

Saddam historically has maintained tight control over the use of WMD; however, he probably has provided contingency instructions to his commanders to use CBW in specific circumstances.

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.

Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the US Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge. Such attacks - more likely with biological than chemical agents - probably would be carried out by special forces or intelligence operatives.

The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) probably has been directed to conduct clandestine attacks against US and Allied interests in the Middle East in the event the United States takes action against Iraq. The IIS probably would be the primary means by which Iraq would attempt to conduct any CBW attacks on the US Homeland, although we have no specific intelligence information that Saddam's regime has directed attacks against US territory.

Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qa'ida - with worldwide reach and extensive terrorist infrastructure, and already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United States - would perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct.

In such circumstances, he might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.

State/INR Alternative View of Iraq's Nuclear Program

The Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR) believes that Saddam continues to want nuclear weapons and that available evidence indicates that Baghdad is pursuing at least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapon-related capabilities. The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so, but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment. Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program, INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening. As a result, INR is unable to predict when Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon.

In INR's view Iraq's efforts to acquire aluminum tubes is central to the argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, but INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge rotors. INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose. INR considers it far more likely that the tubes are intended for another purpose, most likely the production of artillery rockets. The very large quantities being sought, the way the tubes were tested by the Iraqis, and the atypical lack of attention to operational security in the procurement efforts are among the factors, in addition to the DOE assessment, that lead INR to concluded that the tubes are not intended for use in Iraq's nuclear weapon program.

Confidence Levels for Selected Key Judgments in This Estimate

High Confidence:

Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.

We are not detecting portions of these weapons programs.

Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological weapons and missiles.

Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.

Moderate Confidence:

Iraq does not yet have a nuclear weapon or sufficient material to make one but is likely to have a weapon by 2007 to 2009. (see INR alternative view, page 84).

Low Confidence:

When Saddam would use weapons of mass destruction

Whether Saddam would engage in clandestine attacks against the US Homeland.

Whether in desperation Saddam would share chemical or biological weapons with al-Qa'ida.

[...]

Uranium Acquisition. Iraq retains approximately two-and-a-half tons of 2.5 percent enriched uranium oxide, which the IAEA permits. This low-enriched material could be used as a feed material to produce enough HEU for about two nuclear weapons. The use of enriched feed material also would reduce the initial number of centrifuges that Baghdad would need by about half. Iraq could divert this material - the IAEA inspects it only once a year - and enrich it to weapons grade before a subsequent inspection discovered it was missing. The IAEA last inspected this material in lat January 2002.

Iraq has about 550 metric tons of yellowcake1 and low-enriched uranium at Tuwaitha, which is inspected annually by the IAEA. Iraq also began vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake; acquiring either would shorten the time Baghdad needs to produce nuclear weapons.

A foreign government service reported that as of early 2001, Niger planned to send several tons of "pure uranium" (probably yellowcake) to Iraq. As of early 2001, Niger and Iraq reportedly were still working out arrangements for this deal, which would be for up to 500 tons of yellowcake. We do not know the status of this arrangement.

reports indicate that Iraq also has sought uranium ore from Somalia and possibly the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

We cannot confirm whether Iraq successfully succeeded in acquiring uranium ore and/or yellowcake from these sources. Reports suggest Iraq is shifting from domestic mining and milling of uranium to foreign acquisition. Iraq possesses significant phosphate deposits, from which uranium had been chemically extracted before Operation Desert Storm. Intelligence information on whether nuclear-related phosphate mining and/or processing has been reestablished is inconclusive, however.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Key Judgments (from October 2002 NIE) AS RELEASED BY THE WHITE HOUSE

Nobody questioned that the White House's presented an overly dramatic picture of the NIE.

Edited December 5, 2007 by Mr. Big Dog

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

He didn't break the law. Congress gave him the athority to go in. The war was lawful.

Under US law maybe.

As to why they voted for it, perhaps this offers some explanation.

I, along with nearly every Senator in this Chamber, in that secure

room of this Capitol complex, was not only told there were weapons of

mass destruction--specifically chemical and biological--but I was

looked at straight in the face and told that Saddam Hussein had the

means of delivering those biological and chemical weapons of mass

destruction by unmanned drones, called UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles.

Further, I was looked at straight in the face and told that UAVs could

be launched from ships off the Atlantic coast to attack eastern

seaboard cities of the United States.

Is it any wonder that I concluded there was an imminent peril to the

United States? The first public disclosure of that information occurred

perhaps a couple of weeks later, when the information was told to us.

It was prior to the vote on the resolution and it was in a highly

classified setting in a secure room. But the first public disclosure of

that information was when the President addressed the Nation on TV. He

said that Saddam Hussein possessed UAVs.

Later, the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, in his presentation to

the United Nations, in a very dramatic and effective presentation,

expanded that and suggested the possibility that UAVs could be launched

against the homeland, having been transported out of Iraq. The

information was made public, but it was made public after we had

already voted on the resolution, and at the time there was nothing to

contradict that.

We now know, after the fact and on the basis of Dr. Kay's testimony

today in the Senate Armed Services Committee, that the information was

false; and not only that there were not weapons of mass destruction--

chemical and biological--but there was no fleet of UAVs, unmanned

aerial vehicles, nor was there any capability of putting UAVs on ships

and transporting them to the Atlantic coast and launching them at U.S.

cities on the eastern seaboard.

I am upset that the degree of specificity I was given a year and a

half ago, prior to my vote, was not only inaccurate; it was patently

false. I want some further explanations.

Thats just cowardly butt covering by backsliding senators. The world thought Saddam had WMD's and Saddam did nothing to make us think differently.

1) You might get some benefit reading through the debate that was held in the Senate when the resolution was about to be voted on. This sentiment was a pretty common theme prior to voting on it. The Bush administration left no chance unused to spread fear and panic in the country and went so far as to knowingly proliferate false claims of a link between AQ and Saddam that the intelligence community had already rebutted.

2) The world is larger than the US. The world was in the process of ascertaining whether Saddam was in compliance with UN resolutions and Saddam was cooperating - due to the threat against his regime that had been sufficiently established - when Bush called the UN and told the organization that he ain't gonna wait for the inspections to wrap up. He inhibited the inspectors to do their job and advised the UN to pull them out since he had decided that we were going in.

Keep the facts straight, Gary.

[GaryC 7]

He didn't break the law. Congress gave him the athority to go in. The war was lawful.

Under US law maybe.

As to why they voted for it, perhaps this offers some explanation.

I, along with nearly every Senator in this Chamber, in that secure

room of this Capitol complex, was not only told there were weapons of

mass destruction--specifically chemical and biological--but I was

looked at straight in the face and told that Saddam Hussein had the

means of delivering those biological and chemical weapons of mass

destruction by unmanned drones, called UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles.

Further, I was looked at straight in the face and told that UAVs could

be launched from ships off the Atlantic coast to attack eastern

seaboard cities of the United States.

Is it any wonder that I concluded there was an imminent peril to the

United States? The first public disclosure of that information occurred

perhaps a couple of weeks later, when the information was told to us.

It was prior to the vote on the resolution and it was in a highly

classified setting in a secure room. But the first public disclosure of

that information was when the President addressed the Nation on TV. He

said that Saddam Hussein possessed UAVs.

Later, the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, in his presentation to

the United Nations, in a very dramatic and effective presentation,

expanded that and suggested the possibility that UAVs could be launched

against the homeland, having been transported out of Iraq. The

information was made public, but it was made public after we had

already voted on the resolution, and at the time there was nothing to

contradict that.

We now know, after the fact and on the basis of Dr. Kay's testimony

today in the Senate Armed Services Committee, that the information was

false; and not only that there were not weapons of mass destruction--

chemical and biological--but there was no fleet of UAVs, unmanned

aerial vehicles, nor was there any capability of putting UAVs on ships

and transporting them to the Atlantic coast and launching them at U.S.

cities on the eastern seaboard.

I am upset that the degree of specificity I was given a year and a

half ago, prior to my vote, was not only inaccurate; it was patently

false. I want some further explanations.

Thats just cowardly butt covering by backsliding senators. The world thought Saddam had WMD's and Saddam did nothing to make us think differently.

1) You might get some benefit reading through the debate that was held in the Senate when the resolution was about to be voted on. This sentiment was a pretty common theme prior to voting on it. The Bush administration left no chance unused to spread fear and panic in the country and went so far as to knowingly proliferate false claims of a link between AQ and Saddam that the intelligence community had already rebutted.

2) The world is larger than the US. The world was in the process of ascertaining whether Saddam was in compliance with UN resolutions and Saddam was cooperating - due to the threat against his regime that had been sufficiently established - when Bush called the UN and told the organization that he ain't gonna wait for the inspections to wrap up. He inhibited the inspectors to do their job and advised the UN to pull them out since he had decided that we were going in.

Keep the facts straight, Gary.

Saddam was not cooperating. That is why we needed to take him out. All he was doing was a song and dance to prolong things. He didn't cooperate and was never going to cooperate. What, you think we would be better off with Saddam still in power? I think not. We did the world a favor and I am glad we did.

Key Judgments (from October 2002 NIE) AS RELEASED BY THE WHITE HOUSE

Nobody questioned that the White House's presented an overly dramatic picture of the NIE.

That was the NIE. The White house didn't change what was in there. That only means that the White House released it. Or are you saying that Bush changed things from the clasified version? If so show me the proof.

Lets just call this a draw. I know that in your mind Bush is a despot. In my mind he is a hero. Lets just leave it at that. This arguing is getting no where.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Saddam was not cooperating. That is why we needed to take him out. All he was doing was a song and dance to prolong things. He didn't cooperate and was never going to cooperate. What, you think we would be better off with Saddam still in power? I think not. We did the world a favor and I am glad we did.

You keep saying that - and I'm still unclear how you qualify that opinion. How exactly did we do the world a favour - and more specifically how is this favour measured in quantifiable terms?

Bush is not despot - that's somewhat of an exaggeration. Rather I'd describe him as a crooked businessman.

Edited December 5, 2007 by Number 6

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

He didn't break the law. Congress gave him the athority to go in. The war was lawful.

Under US law maybe.

As to why they voted for it, perhaps this offers some explanation.

I, along with nearly every Senator in this Chamber, in that secure

room of this Capitol complex, was not only told there were weapons of

mass destruction--specifically chemical and biological--but I was

looked at straight in the face and told that Saddam Hussein had the

means of delivering those biological and chemical weapons of mass

destruction by unmanned drones, called UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles.

Further, I was looked at straight in the face and told that UAVs could

be launched from ships off the Atlantic coast to attack eastern

seaboard cities of the United States.

Is it any wonder that I concluded there was an imminent peril to the

United States? The first public disclosure of that information occurred

perhaps a couple of weeks later, when the information was told to us.

It was prior to the vote on the resolution and it was in a highly

classified setting in a secure room. But the first public disclosure of

that information was when the President addressed the Nation on TV. He

said that Saddam Hussein possessed UAVs.

Later, the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, in his presentation to

the United Nations, in a very dramatic and effective presentation,

expanded that and suggested the possibility that UAVs could be launched

against the homeland, having been transported out of Iraq. The

information was made public, but it was made public after we had

already voted on the resolution, and at the time there was nothing to

contradict that.

We now know, after the fact and on the basis of Dr. Kay's testimony

today in the Senate Armed Services Committee, that the information was

false; and not only that there were not weapons of mass destruction--

chemical and biological--but there was no fleet of UAVs, unmanned

aerial vehicles, nor was there any capability of putting UAVs on ships

and transporting them to the Atlantic coast and launching them at U.S.

cities on the eastern seaboard.

I am upset that the degree of specificity I was given a year and a

half ago, prior to my vote, was not only inaccurate; it was patently

false. I want some further explanations.

Thats just cowardly butt covering by backsliding senators. The world thought Saddam had WMD's and Saddam did nothing to make us think differently.

1) You might get some benefit reading through the debate that was held in the Senate when the resolution was about to be voted on. This sentiment was a pretty common theme prior to voting on it. The Bush administration left no chance unused to spread fear and panic in the country and went so far as to knowingly proliferate false claims of a link between AQ and Saddam that the intelligence community had already rebutted.

2) The world is larger than the US. The world was in the process of ascertaining whether Saddam was in compliance with UN resolutions and Saddam was cooperating - due to the threat against his regime that had been sufficiently established - when Bush called the UN and told the organization that he ain't gonna wait for the inspections to wrap up. He inhibited the inspectors to do their job and advised the UN to pull them out since he had decided that we were going in.

Keep the facts straight, Gary.

Saddam was not cooperating.

The report of the chief inspector proves you wrong:

Inspection process:

Inspections in Iraq resumed on 27 November 2002. In matters

relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have

faced relatively few difficulties and certainly much less than

those that were faced by UNSCOM in the period 1991 to 1998. This

may well be due to the strong outside pressure.

Some practical matters, which were not settled by the talks Dr

ElBaradei and I had with the Iraqi side in Vienna prior to

inspections or in resolution 1441 (2002), have been resolved at

meetings, which we have had in Baghdad.

Initial difficulties raised by the Iraqi side about helicopters

and aerial surveillance planes operating in the no-fly zones were

overcome.

This is not to say that the operation of inspections is free from

frictions, but at this juncture we are able to perform

professional no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase

aerial surveillance.

Transcript of Blix's U.N. presentation

The inspectors and other UN staff were withdrawn from Iraq not for a lack of cooperation from Saddam but because, as the Secretary General explained: "Yesterday UNMOVIC, the [international] Atomic [Energy] Agency and myself got information from the United States authorities that it would be prudent not to leave our staff in the region."

UN News Centre

Again, read the primary sources.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

That was the NIE. The White house didn't change what was in there. That only means that the White House released it. Or are you saying that Bush changed things from the clasified version? If so show me the proof.

No but the white House released and emphasized what they wanted to release and emphasize to support the case for the war that they had long decided to get this country into. And yes, they did withhold vital information from the public and from Congress. It is superbly documented in regards to the completely manufactured AQ / Saddam link. You know what they're saying: Once a liar...

[GaryC 7]

He didn't break the law. Congress gave him the athority to go in. The war was lawful.

Under US law maybe.

As to why they voted for it, perhaps this offers some explanation.

I, along with nearly every Senator in this Chamber, in that secure

room of this Capitol complex, was not only told there were weapons of

mass destruction--specifically chemical and biological--but I was

looked at straight in the face and told that Saddam Hussein had the

means of delivering those biological and chemical weapons of mass

destruction by unmanned drones, called UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles.

Further, I was looked at straight in the face and told that UAVs could

be launched from ships off the Atlantic coast to attack eastern

seaboard cities of the United States.

Is it any wonder that I concluded there was an imminent peril to the

United States? The first public disclosure of that information occurred

perhaps a couple of weeks later, when the information was told to us.

It was prior to the vote on the resolution and it was in a highly

classified setting in a secure room. But the first public disclosure of

that information was when the President addressed the Nation on TV. He

said that Saddam Hussein possessed UAVs.

Later, the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, in his presentation to

the United Nations, in a very dramatic and effective presentation,

expanded that and suggested the possibility that UAVs could be launched

against the homeland, having been transported out of Iraq. The

information was made public, but it was made public after we had

already voted on the resolution, and at the time there was nothing to

contradict that.

We now know, after the fact and on the basis of Dr. Kay's testimony

today in the Senate Armed Services Committee, that the information was

false; and not only that there were not weapons of mass destruction--

chemical and biological--but there was no fleet of UAVs, unmanned

aerial vehicles, nor was there any capability of putting UAVs on ships

and transporting them to the Atlantic coast and launching them at U.S.

cities on the eastern seaboard.

I am upset that the degree of specificity I was given a year and a

half ago, prior to my vote, was not only inaccurate; it was patently

false. I want some further explanations.

Thats just cowardly butt covering by backsliding senators. The world thought Saddam had WMD's and Saddam did nothing to make us think differently.

1) You might get some benefit reading through the debate that was held in the Senate when the resolution was about to be voted on. This sentiment was a pretty common theme prior to voting on it. The Bush administration left no chance unused to spread fear and panic in the country and went so far as to knowingly proliferate false claims of a link between AQ and Saddam that the intelligence community had already rebutted.

2) The world is larger than the US. The world was in the process of ascertaining whether Saddam was in compliance with UN resolutions and Saddam was cooperating - due to the threat against his regime that had been sufficiently established - when Bush called the UN and told the organization that he ain't gonna wait for the inspections to wrap up. He inhibited the inspectors to do their job and advised the UN to pull them out since he had decided that we were going in.

Keep the facts straight, Gary.

Saddam was not cooperating.

The report of the chief inspector proves you wrong:

Inspection process:

Inspections in Iraq resumed on 27 November 2002. In matters

relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have

faced relatively few difficulties and certainly much less than

those that were faced by UNSCOM in the period 1991 to 1998. This

may well be due to the strong outside pressure.

Some practical matters, which were not settled by the talks Dr

ElBaradei and I had with the Iraqi side in Vienna prior to

inspections or in resolution 1441 (2002), have been resolved at

meetings, which we have had in Baghdad.

Initial difficulties raised by the Iraqi side about helicopters

and aerial surveillance planes operating in the no-fly zones were

overcome.

This is not to say that the operation of inspections is free from

frictions, but at this juncture we are able to perform

professional no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase

aerial surveillance.

Transcript of Blix's U.N. presentation

The inspectors and other UN staff were withdrawn from Iraq not for a lack of cooperation from Saddam but because, as the Secretary General explained: "Yesterday UNMOVIC, the [international] Atomic [Energy] Agency and myself got information from the United States authorities that it would be prudent not to leave our staff in the region."

UN News Centre

Again, read the primary sources.

It proves nothing. Saddam kicked out the inspectors and moved everything around. So what if he let them inspect an empty facility. He wasn't cooperating at all. You just believe what you want despite the evidence in your face. Like I said, lets just drop it. I am not going to change your mind and your not going to change mine. Bush is a hero for taking out Saddam whether you want to see it or not.