SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JohnM who wrote (107249)4/1/2005 11:19:39 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793800
 

It is genuinely hard to say what comes out of this stew but we do need to watch the historical revisionism.


The overall mission of the Bush admin after 911 was to break the pattern of the governments in the ME. They started out with the one we were already in a shooting war with, Iraq. I remember a host of reasons given, you want to pin it on WMD. Water over the dam now. When you win, the reasons you started with don't get remembered. I think history will come down on my side, but we will both be past the feeding tube stage when that is decided.

The ME anthill has been kicked open, and the sunshine is causing a lot of running for cover.

You will see a lot of posts on Academia. My side is starting to win a long, slow battle toward "diversity" there. Your side swung the pendulum too far to the left in their hiring, and will now have to watch it swing back.

I get a kick out of the academics who claim that the reason for all the liberal hires is because the best talent available is all liberal, the conservative ones aren't smart enough. Reminds me of 60 years ago when their predecessors claimed the same thing about black and female applicants when defending the all white male ivory towers.



To: JohnM who wrote (107249)4/2/2005 1:50:07 AM
From: KLP  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793800
 
John...re WMD...you "may" have missed these comments from Kennedy, Hillary, Kerry, etc... But somehow, I think you heard them...<g>

<<<<<<Actually, Sen. Ted Kennedy also was aware of the evidence and believed that Iraq had WMDs. The following is from a Kennedy press release issued last October and still on his website: kennedy.senate.gov It is not possible to reconcile these comments with his slanderous accusations of last week:

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed. ... There is clearly a threat from Iraq, and there is clearly a danger... We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. ... In public hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee in March, CIA Director George Tenet described Iraq as a threat but not as a proliferator, saying that Saddam Hussein 'is determined to thwart U.N. sanctions, press ahead with weapons of mass destruction, and resurrect the military force he had before the Gulf War.' That is unacceptable...
"If Saddam's regime and his very survival are threatened, then his view of his interests may be profoundly altered. He may decide he has nothing to lose by using weapons of mass destruction himself or by sharing them with terrorists. .. Nor can we rule out the possibility that Saddam would assault American forces with chemical or biological weapons. ... Clearly we must halt Saddam Hussein's quest for weapons of mass destruction." -- October 4, 2002<<<<<

8888>>>>

Hillary:

"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.... 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." --Speech on the Senate floor, October, 10, 2002 clinton.senate.gov

88888>>>>>

Rep. Dick Gephardt, (D-Mo.) made the following statements on Meet the Press on Sept. 28th, 2003:

REP. GEPHARDT: (Showing a videotape from October 2, 2002) In our view, Iraq's use and continuing development of weapons of mass destruction, combined with efforts of terrorists to acquire such weapons pose a unique and dangerous threat to our national security. (End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: "A unique and dangerous threat." We have not found any such weapons. Were you wrong or misled?

REP. GEPHARDT: Tim, I didn't just take the president's word for this. I went out to the CIA three times. I talked to George Tenet personally. I talked to his top people. I talked to people that had been in the Clinton administration in their security effort. And I became convinced, from that, all of that, that he either had weapons of mass destruction or he had components of weapons or he had the ability to quickly make a lot of them and pass them to terrorists. Look, after 9/11, we're in a world, in my view, that we have to protect the American people from further acts of terrorism. That's my highest responsibility, that's the Congress' highest responsibility, and the president's. And I did what I thought was the right thing to do to protect our people from further acts of terrorism. We cannot have that happen in the United States, and I will always do that. --Rep. Dick Gephardt, 9/28/03 msnbc.com

88888>>>>>

Actually, Sen. Ted Kennedy also was aware of the evidence and believed that Iraq had WMDs. The following is from a Kennedy press release issued last October and still on his website: kennedy.senate.gov It is not possible to reconcile these comments with his slanderous accusations of last week:

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed. ... There is clearly a threat from Iraq, and there is clearly a danger... We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. ... In public hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee in March, CIA Director George Tenet described Iraq as a threat but not as a proliferator, saying that Saddam Hussein 'is determined to thwart U.N. sanctions, press ahead with weapons of mass destruction, and resurrect the military force he had before the Gulf War.' That is unacceptable...
"If Saddam's regime and his very survival are threatened, then his view of his interests may be profoundly altered. He may decide he has nothing to lose by using weapons of mass destruction himself or by sharing them with terrorists. .. Nor can we rule out the possibility that Saddam would assault American forces with chemical or biological weapons. ... Clearly we must halt Saddam Hussein's quest for weapons of mass destruction." -- October 4, 2002

Kennedy also wrote at the time, "Let me say it plainly: I not only concede, but I am convinced that President Bush believes genuinely in the course he urges upon us. --9/27/03 kennedy.senate.gov

88888>>>>>

Sen. John Kerry also was aware of the evidence and was convinced that Iraq had WMDs. The following is from a speech he gave at Georgetown University in January, 2003: globalsecurity.org

"... we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.
"So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. ... In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing."

88888>>>>>



To: JohnM who wrote (107249)4/2/2005 1:52:14 AM
From: KLP  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793800
 
And, then of course, there was this:

A Plot to Deceive?

By Robert Kagan
Sunday, June 8, 2003; Page B07


washingtonpost.com

There is something surreal about the charges flying that President Bush lied when he claimed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Yesterday The Post continued the barrage, reporting that Defense Intelligence Agency analysts claimed last September merely that Iraq "probably" possessed "chemical agent in chemical munitions" and "probably" possessed "bulk chemical stockpiles, primarily containing precursors, but that also could consist of some mustard agent and VX," a deadly nerve agent.

This kind of "discrepancy" qualifies as front-page news these days. Why? Not because the Bush administration may have -- repeat, may have -- exaggerated the extent of knowledge about what Hussein had in his WMD arsenal. No, the critics' real aim is to prove that, as a New York Times reporter recently put it, "the failure so far to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq may mean that there never were any in the first place."



The absurdity of this charge is mind-boggling. Yes, neither the CIA nor the U.N. inspectors have ever known exactly how many weapons Hussein had or how many he was building. But that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and the ability to produce more? That has never been in doubt.

Start with this: The Iraqi government in the 1990s admitted to U.N. weapons inspectors that it had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax and a few tons of VX. Where are they? U.N. inspectors have been trying to answer that question for years. Because Hussein refused to come clean, the logical presumption was that he had hidden them. As my colleague, nonproliferation expert Joseph Cirincione, put it bluntly in a report last year: "Iraq has chemical and biological weapons." The only thing not known was where they were and how far the Iraqi weapons programs had advanced since the inspectors left in 1998.

Go back and take a look at the report Hans Blix delivered to the U.N. Security Council on Jan. 27. On the question of Iraq's stocks of anthrax, Blix reported "no convincing evidence" that they were ever destroyed. But there was "strong evidence" that Iraq produced more anthrax than it had admitted "and that at least some of this was retained." Blix also reported that Iraq possessed 650 kilograms of "bacterial growth media," enough "to produce . . . 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax." Cirincione concluded that "it is likely that Iraq retains stockpiles of anthrax, botulinum toxin and aflatoxin."

On the question of VX, Blix reported that his inspections team had information that conflicted with Iraqi accounts. The Iraqis claimed that they had produced VX only as part of a pilot program but that the quality was poor and the agent was never "weaponized." But according to Blix, the inspections team discovered Iraqi documents that showed the quality of the VX to be better than declared. The team also uncovered "indications that the agent" had been "weaponized." According to Cirincione's August 2002 report, "it is widely believed that significant quantities of chemical agents and precursors remain stored in secret depots" and that there were also "thousands of possible chemical munitions still unaccounted for." Blix reported there were 6,500 "chemical bombs" that Iraq admitted producing but whose whereabouts were unknown. Blix's team calculated the amount of chemical agent in those bombs at 1,000 tons. As Blix reported to the Security Council, "in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for."

Today, of course, they and many other known weapons are still unaccounted for. Does it follow, therefore, that they never existed? Or does it make more sense to conclude that the weapons were there and that either we'll find them or we'll find out what happened to them?

The answer depends on how broad and pervasive you like your conspiracies to be. Because if Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair are lying, they're not alone. They're part of a vast conspiratorial network of liars that includes U.N. weapons inspectors and reputable arms control experts both inside and outside government, both Republicans and Democrats.

Maybe former CIA director John Deutch was lying when he testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Sept. 19, 1996, that "we believe that [Hussein] retains an undetermined quantity of chemical and biological agents that he would certainly have the ability to deliver against adversaries by aircraft or artillery or by Scud missile systems."

Maybe former defense secretary William Cohen was lying in April when he said, "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons. . . . I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."

Maybe the German intelligence service was lying when it reported in 2001 that Hussein might be three years away from being able to build three nuclear weapons and that by 2005 Iraq would have a missile with sufficient range to reach Europe.

Maybe French President Jacques Chirac was lying when he declared in February that there were probably weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that "we have to find and destroy them."

Maybe Al Gore was lying when he declared last September, based on what he learned as vice president, that Hussein had "stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Finally, there's former president Bill Clinton. In a February 1998 speech, Clinton described Iraq's "offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs." Clinton accurately reported the view of U.N. weapons inspectors "that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons." That was as unequivocal and unqualified a statement as any made by George W. Bush.

Clinton went on to insist, in words now poignant, that the world had to address the "kind of threat Iraq poses . . . a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists . . . who travel the world among us unnoticed." I think Bush said that, too.

So if you like a good conspiracy, this one's a doozy. And the best thing about it is that if all these people are lying, there's only one person who ever told the truth: Saddam Hussein. And now we can't find him either.

The writer, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, writes a monthly column for The Post.