| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2004/7/12 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32237 Activity:insanely high |
7/12 Why is it that even W is conceding that WMD hasn't been found, while
motd conservatives has been telling that us it has? Is W also
a lying liberal?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/12/international/middleeast/12CND-BUSH.html
\_ Why is it that liberals keep on beating a dead horse that nobody
cares about anymore?
\_ Nobody cares? Tell that to all the families of soldiers that
have died.
\_ Yup, nobody cares, especially the GIs in Iraq, who are more
concerned about getting the hell out rather than finding
WMD. Again, liberals == dead horse + whip.
\_ Obviously everyone cares. It was the premise of the war.
Everyone including Bush still talks about it. U = dumb.
\_ And to all of us that are footing the bill...
\_ If the general public actually cared the left wouldn't need
Mike Moore to browbeat G.W.
\_ If you weren't an idiot then zebras would conquer Zaire.
\_ Hahahaha. You wish that nobody cared about it. We told you at
the time that he was a lying scumbag and you and your kind
shouted us down. Now you will pay for leading America into
an illegal and unnecessary war.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/24/poll.iraq
54 percent of Americans now say Iraq war a mistake.
\_ Why does he hate America?
\_ Yeah, and 90% said capturing Saddam was a good thing. You can
find a poll at any given point of time to support anything.
Anyway, if you were to take a poll today I'm sure you'll find
less than 40% of the population really cares about finding WMD.
\_ That's exactly what I've been wondering for the last four years.
\_ Dubya concedes that "WMD stockpiles" have not been found. So,
which motd conservatives are saying that WMD stockpiles have been
found? Anyway, Bush's main point is that Saddam could have given
it to al Qaeda *at some point*, which is why we went pre-emptive.
\_ cyclosarin shells, mustard gas shells, sarin shells, very large
chemical attack averted in jordan, missile technology, buried
nuclear components, uranium sought from Africa...
Why do you not question the statements of DOZENS of leading
Dems in WJC's administration and Congress? Iraq, along
with Iran and Syria, was the largest state sponsor of terror.
\_ Uranium sought from Africa? Where have you been, man? That
was completely made up.
\_ He still thinks Iraq had WMD. He's deluded and in need of
meds. His belief in the Uranium story is the least of his
problems.
\_ Woops I guess you are wrong yet again:
A new British inquiry is showing that Saddam did
seek uranium in Africa
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04193/344163.stm
Furthermore, the Senate's report undermines
Wilson's lies.
\_ From the Congressional Record... let's see what
Kerry, Daschle, and Clinton had to say during the
1990's about Iraq's WMD programs:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/949198/posts
\_ I'm sorry, which of these men invaded Iraq on the
pretext of WMD? None. They called for inspections.
W picked the wrong horse and now he's covered in
manure. Deal with it.
\_ Hmm... rusty old leftovers from the Iran/Iraq war, unrelated
event in another country, missiles that flew slightly farther
than allowed if you remove the guidance system, and some
buried aluminum pipes.
\_ Wrong, it was a gas centrifuge bearing housing. A
massive chemical attack en route from Syria to Jordan
is an 'unrelated event'. Do you know where these
countries are on a map and their respective political
institutions?
\_ oh, so they're next to Iraq, so we should invade Iraq;
great logic!
\_ Assad is Baathist. If the connection is not
self-evident I don't think its worth continuing
this.
this. You would approve of invading Syria?
I would - and I think the Europeans should do it.
\_ Baathist party in Syria and baathist party in Iraq
have nothing to do with each other. politics in Iraq
over the last 30 years have been dominated by
one guy, saddam, and only saddam, it's not like a party
system in america at all. |
| 5/24 |
|
| www.nytimes.com/2004/07/12/international/middleeast/12CND-BUSH.html Doug Mills/The New York Times President Bush not only reasserted his justification for the Iraq campaign but said that future pre-emptive strikes were not out of the question. Days After Scathing Report, Bush Defends War on Iraq By DAVID STOUT Published: July 12, 2004 W ASHINGTON, July 12 President Bush vigorously defended his strategy against terrorism today, asserting that the war against Iraq was right and that the United States, while relying heavily on firm diplomacy, would not shrink from future pre-emptive strikes in defending itself. "Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq," Mr Bush said in a speech at the Oak Ridge nuclear installation in Tennessee. "We removed a declared enemy of America who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them." Moments later, Mr Bush again embraced the doctrine of self-defense through pre-emptive strikes when necessary. "To overcome the dangers of our time, America is also taking a new approach in the world," he said. "We're determined to challenge new threats, not ignore them or simply wait for future tragedy." But today's speech was significant in view of the Senate Intelligence Committee's scathing report, issued last week, concluding that the road to war in Iraq was paved with faulty intelligence that greatly exaggerated the danger from deadly weapons in the hands of Saddam Hussein. The president alluded to the panel's findings, declaring that they would "help us in the work of reform." He also reminded his listeners that previous presidents regarded Saddam Hussein as a menace, and that there was international concern about Mr Hussein's possession or development of chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons. "In 2002, the United Nations Security Council yet again demanded a full accounting of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs," Mr Bush recalled. "As he had for over a decade, Saddam Hussein refused to comply." Mr Bush also defended the Central Intelligence Agency, whose data-gathering and analysis were harshly criticized by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Mr Bush said "outstanding work done by the CIA" had helped to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. He also said that the Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose performance has been criticized in connection with the Sept. Trying to dispel the notion that the United States has become an arrogant, go-it-alone nation on his watch, Mr Bush said, "We are protecting the peace by working with friends and allies and international institutions to isolate and confront terrorists and outlaw regimes." Senator John Kerry, the president's presumptive Democratic opponent, dismissed Mr Bush's speech. "The gravest threat we face is terrorists or hostile states getting their hands on a nuclear weapon," Mr Kerry said in a statement. "Since that dark day in September, have we reached out to our allies and forged an urgent global effort to ensure that nuclear weapons and materials are secured? Have we taken every step we should to stop North Korea and Iran's nuclear programs? Have we restructured our intelligence agencies and given them the resources they need to keep our country safe? "The honest answer, in each of these areas, is that we have done too little, often too late, and even cut back our efforts. It's not enough to give speeches America will only be safer when we achieve results." Mr Bush chose the Oak Ridge nuclear site as a backdrop at least in part because it houses components of Libya's now-abandoned nuclear program. "These materials voluntarily turned over by the Libyan government are also encouraging evidence that nations can abandon these ambitions and choose a better way," he said. "Libya is dismantling its weapons of mass destruction and long-range missile programs." Mr Bush said the kind of resolve that led to Libya's renunciation of nuclear ambitions could work with other countries. "We're working with responsible governments and international institutions to convince the leaders of North Korea and Iran that their nuclear weapons ambitions are deeply contrary to their own interests," he said. Mr Bush reiterated his stance that a free Iraq can be an incubator for democracy in the Middle East rather than a spawning ground for terrorists. "Iraq, which once had the worst government in the Middle East, is now becoming an example of reform to the region," he said. "And Iraqi security forces are fighting beside coalition troops to defeat the terrorists and foreign fighters who threaten their nation and the world." The president seemed to be trying to show that he is not bothered by reports that the independent commission investigating the Sept. "We must confront serious dangers before they fully materialize. And so my administration looked at the intelligence on Iraq, and we saw a threat." Administration critics have repeatedly accused Mr Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney of implying strong ties between the old Baghdad regime and Al Qaeda, and even encouraging a public misperception that Saddam Hussein might have played a part in the Sept. Those accusations, and rebuttals from the administration that it acted based on what it knew at the time and that the Iraq war will stand the test of history, are already paramount themes in the contest between Mr Bush and Mr Kerry. In any event, Mr Bush said today that the campaigns in Iraq and Aghanistan, where the United States led a campaign that overthrew the Taliban government that had sheltered terrorists, have been worth the costs. "Delivering these nations from tyranny has required sacrifice and loss," he said. "We will honor that sacrifice by finishing the great work we have begun." |
| www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/24/poll.iraq -> www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/24/poll.iraq/ WASHINGTON (CNN) -- For the first time since the start of the war in Iraq, a majority of Americans surveyed in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll say the United States made a mistake in sending troops to that country. Fifty-four percent of those polled said it was a mistake to send US troops to Iraq, compared with 41 percent who expressed that sentiment in early June. Most respondents to the poll, 55 percent, also said they don't believe the war has made the United States safer from terrorism -- rejecting an argument that President Bush has repeatedly advanced in his rationale for the war. Yet the poll, results of which were released Thursday, also found that Sen. John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has made little headway among respondents on the issue of Iraq, which has figured prominently on the campaign trail. Kerry, a four-term US senator from Massachusetts, and Bush are essentially tied when poll respondents are asked who would better handle the situation in Iraq. Forty-seven percent said Bush would do a better job on Iraq, compared with 46 percent who picked Kerry. Commander in chief And while six in 10 of those polled said they believe Kerry could handle the job of commander-in-chief, most indicated that they trust Bush more in that role, 51 percent to 43 percent. The poll, based on interviews with 1,005 Americans -- including 521 likely voters -- was conducted by telephone June 21-23. The margin of error varied by question, from a low of 3 percentage points to 45 percentage points. The poll was released on the same day that a wave of attacks on Iraqis and coalition forces left more than 90 dead. US could send more troops to Iraq) The impact of the attacks on opinion recorded in the poll was not a factor since the survey was taken earlier this week. Looking at the presidential race, the poll found a tie among likely voters: 49 percent for Bush and 48 percent for Kerry. When poll respondents were asked to consider independent Ralph Nader, the breakdown was: 48 percent for Bush, 47 percent for Kerry and 3 percent for Nader. His favorable rating is higher than Bush's, 58 percent to 53 percent, and it has grown over the past few months as Bush's has fallen. Kerry also gets higher ratings on who would better handle the economy -- 53 percent of respondents picked the Democrat, while 40 percent selected Bush. And the economy was identified by more voters, 41 percent, as the most important role for the president -- ahead of both managing the government or acting as commander in chief. CNN Polling Director Keating Holland contributed to this report. |
| www.post-gazette.com/pg/04193/344163.stm Jack Kelly: The Iraq connection A new British inquiry is showing that Saddam did seek uranium in Africa Sunday, July 11, 2004 Britain's Financial Times reported Wednesday that an official British government inquiry into the intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq has concluded that Britain's MI-6 was correct to conclude that Saddam Hussein's regime had sought to buy uranium ore from Niger. If so, this gives the lie to the charge that "Bush lied!" when he said in his 2003 State of the Union address: "The British government has learned that Saddam recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The July 7 FT story by Mark Huband follows his article from the previous week, which revealed that "a key part of the UK's intelligence on the uranium came from a European intelligence service that undertook a three-year surveillance of an alleged clandestine uranium-smuggling operation of which Iraq was a part." Huband doesn't identify the "European intelligence service" in this or his earlier story. The scuttlebutt is that it was the DSGE, the French external intelligence service, which shared the intelligence with MI-6 only on the express condition that the Brits not share it with the United States. The other countries were North Korea, Iran, Libya and China. The first is that the only "evidence" the CIA had at the time of an Iraq-Niger-yellowcake connection was a fairly obvious forgery obtained through Italian sources. The second was the "investigation" conducted in early 2002 by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson on behalf of the CIA. In his July 2003 New York Times op-ed about the investigation, in which he described his methodology as "drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business." The people he talked to told him that Niger hadn't sold uranium to Iraq. Wilson's op-ed accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence -- and ignoring his report on Niger -- to justify a war on Iraq. The first is that the people to whom Wilson was talking might not have been telling him the truth. The second is that to say that Niger did not sell uranium to Iraq is not the same as saying Iraq did not try to buy yellowcake ore from Niger. In fact, Wilson himself has confirmed that Iraq did indeed try to buy uranium from Niger. With his sensational charges against the Bush White House, Wilson earned 15 minutes of fame -- frequent appearances on television, a spread in Vanity Fair, a book deal. But in his recently published book, Wilson acknowledges that in 1999, Saddam Hussein's information minister, Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf (aka "Baghdad Bob"), approached an official of the Niger government to discuss trade. Since Niger's only other export is goats -- of which there is no shortage in Iraq -- the Niger official surmised that Baghdad Bob's interest was in yellowcake ore. Few of the news organs that played up Wilson's original charges have bothered to mention the reversal of field Wilson made in his book. Surely some of the reporters, editors and producers have read it. In another story largely ignored by major media, The Associated Press reported last week that "in a secret operation, the United States last month removed from Iraq nearly two tons of uranium and hundreds of highly radioactive items that could have been used in a so-called dirty bomb." On July 6 Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham disclosed the operation, which was completed June 23. He described it as a "major achievement" in efforts to "keep potentially dangerous nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists." The uranium discovered was "low enrichment" (less than 20 percent U-235 isotope) and hence unsuitable for making atomic bombs. Khidir Hamza, who headed Iraq's nuclear program prior to his defection in 1994, said Iraq had obtained centrifuges from German sources. An attempt to smuggle in centrifuge components in 2002 was thwarted, several sources said. Also ignored by the major media were reports that components of Iraqi missile systems -- some of them radioactive -- have been turning up in European scrap metal yards, and the discovery in Iraq late in June by Polish troops of "16 or 17" artillery shells that tested positive for the nerve agent sarin. Terrorists were trying to buy the shells for $5,000 each, Polish officials said. |
| www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/949198/posts IRAQ/WMD: What did Clinton & Senate Dems know & whenHYPOCRISYDEMS; SEE FOR YOURSELF Library of Congress 7/19/03 Various Senators Posted on 07/19/2003 4:10:41 PM PDT by Wolfstar ED. They are EXTREMELY revealing as to who was wringing their hands over the danger posed to United States security by Iraq and its WMD just five years ago, and who was calling Iraqs actions that year a crisis. These debates led to passage of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, WHICH MADE REGIME CHANGE IN IRAQ UNITED STATES POLICY. Its crucial ammunition for anyone who wants clear, unambiguous evidence of Democrat hypocrisy on Iraq and WMD. BEGIN EXCERPTS: Click link above to search the full Congressional Record. Also note that, where used, bold and upper case emphasis is Wolfstars. NOTE: After Kofi Annan secured one more useless agreement with Hussein, Daschle took the floor to gush like a schoolgirl about that achievement. The reader is advised to pay close attention to Daschles words here. What we should demand is an answer to what intelligence Daschle relied on when he declared that Iraq had not only chemical and biological weapons, but nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them. If fully implemented, this commitment will allow UNSCOM to fulfill its mission: First, to find and destroy all of Iraqs chemical, biological and nuclear weapons; The United States remains resolved to secure, by whatever means necessary , Iraqs full compliance with its commitment to destroy its weapons of mass destruction. At the very moment diplomacy appears not to be working, force will be employed. This is not a question of simply delaying and somehow, then, obviating the need for the use of force should it be required. President, we have made great progress on paper over the last 72 hours. Every single one of those scummy Dem presidential wannabes from the senate knows this, but that doesnt prevent them from pretending to be outraged at phony claims that the Bush Administration hyped intelligence. Again, we ought to demand answers to what intelligence Clinton and company relied on in 1998 when they changed United States policy toward Iraq from one of containment to one of regime change. This program was in violation of the Biological Weapons Convention, to which Iraq is a party. ED NOTE: Dorgan presents exhibits in support of a call for an International War Crimes Tribunal for Iraq. The exhibits detail the crimes of Saddam Hussein and Iraqi leaders. The most enormous crime that Iraqi leaders have committed was the genocidal Anfal campaign against Kurds in rural areas of northern Iraq. The campaign involved the destruction of thousands of Kurdish villages, and the murder, disappearance, extermination by chemical weapons, or forcible resettlement of hundreds of thousands of Kurds. The third category is Iraqi violations of treaties and UN resolutions. These chemical weapons attacks, both in the war against Iran and internally against the people of Kurdistan, raise the issue of Iraqs entire program to develop weapons of mass destruction chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. According to the Clinton Administration white paper, Iraqs biological weapons activities included producing 8,500 liters of anthrax, 19,000 liters of botulinum toxin, and 2,200 liters of alfatoxin. Iraq also prepared biological weapons munitions, including 25 Scud missile warheads 5 anthrax, 16 botulinum toxin, 4 alfatoxin, 157 aerial bombs, and aerial dispensers. Iraq researched other ways of using biological weapons, including 155mm artillery shells, artillery rockets, a MiG-21 drone, and aerosol generators. Lastly, Iraq has confessed to a nuclear weapons development program, but again only after Husayn Kamils defection in 1995. ED NOTE: It cant be emphasized strongly enough that the UN Security Council declared Iraq to be in material breach five years ago. Yet that Leftist cabal led by Annan, Chriac and Schroeder refused to stand by its own findings while it was putting Bush and Blair through the wringer earlier this year. I am far, far more interested in learning the truth about this than I am about one sentence in the State of the Union speech. Vigorous diplomacy has been pursued over the past three months, but, thus far, Saddam Hussein has shown that he has no interest in a peaceful solution on anything other than his own terms. We cannot allow this tyrant to prevail over the will of the international community. Our national security would be seriously compromised by a failure to stand up to the challenge he has confronted us with. If Iraq does not comply immediately and unconditionally with United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding unfettered access for United States weapons inspectors, I believe that President Clinton will have no choice but to order the use of air power. NOTE: Ironic, isnt it, that time really ran out five years later under a different president. In recent weeks, several questions and criticisms have been raised with respect to President Clintons policy. They are to curtail and delay Saddam Husseins capacity to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction and his ability to threaten his neighbors. We should all hope for a genuine diplomatic solution to this stand-off, but no one should doubt our resolve to use force if it becomes necessary. First and foremost, an Iraq left free to develop weapons of mass destruction would pose a grave threat to our national security. ED NOTE: Again, one must ask the question why in 1998 but not in 2003? That, I hope, is the message that will be heard in Baghdad, most importantly. If the Commander in Chief of the United States decides that military force is necessary to be employed against Iraq, the overwhelming majority of Members of the United States Senate will stand strongly behind him and behind those American personnel in uniform who will carry out that policy. NOTE: Lott introduces the bill that, when later passed, becomes the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. I am joined by Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, Senator McCain of Arizona, Senator Lieberman of Connecticut, Senator Helms of North Carolina, Senator Shelby of Alabama, Senator Brownback of Kansas, and Senator Kyl of Arizona. For months, I have urged the Administration to fundamentally change its policy on Iraq. Monitoring the concealment of weapons of mass destruction is not enough. It should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime. NOTE: This law passed overwhelmingly in 1998 and was signed into law by Clinton. Yet in the post-9/11, post anthrax-attacks world, in 2002-03 Dem senators reversed course and opposed the invasion of Iraq to effect that very regime change policy they had placed into United States law. There is only one answer: Because a member of their party was not in the White House. They put raw partisan politics above the national well-being and are still doing so today. Saddam Hussein will lose his job, I will lose my job, or I will keep talking about him on this floor. NOTE: Sure enough, Hussein outlasted Kerreys tenure in the Senate. Terrorism may or may not actually be on the rise, but terrorists have recently shown the intention and ability to attack American targets overseas. As we confront organizations like that of Usama bin Laden, we come face to face with people who will go to great efforts to kill Americans, and we react strongly. In the aftermath of events like the bombing of Khobar Towers or the two embassies in Africa, we naturally move terrorism to the forefront of our threat concerns. ED NOTE: Dont know which we Kerrey was talking about, since Clinton didnt do squat about terrorism during his eight-year term. So, as regards the threat posed by Usama bin Laden, what did Clinton and the Senate Dems know, and when did they know it? I refer to the need to free the Iraqi people from one of the most oppressive dictatorships on earth. We Americans, who have striven for more than two centuries to govern ourselves, should particularly feel the cruel anomaly which is the Iraqi governm... |