What I wish KERRY Would Say About Iraq

[liberalpragmatist]

I say this as a Kerry supporter who feels that Kerry is parsing his position on Iraq and damaging himself way too much in the process. It's not at all a crime to have a nuanced position -- I have one on the war too -- but I think he should put his position in these terms -- it's close to what I'm positive he actually feels, based on previous statements, but would also spell things out far more clearly than the way he's been saying them. This isn't a real quote, it's what I wish he would say:

"I've always believed that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous individual. We know that for years he was developing weapons of mass destruction. We know that he was brutal and genocidal. He kicked out weapons inspectors in 1998 and from that year on through 2002 we did not know what he had in his possession. I urged President Clinton to go to the UN and threaten the use of force against Hussein in 1998. I've always believed that the threat of force and removal would be the only way to put pressure on Saddam to open the country to UN weapons inspectors.

"When George W. Bush threatened war, it would have been hypocritical of me not to advocate putting pressure on Saddam through the use of force. I supported an inspections regime. Regime change was to me a last resort if massive evidence of WMD's was found and if he refused to dismantle them or cooperate with inspectors. The President revealed to the U.S. Congress and to the American people intelligence that he believed proved that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. I believed him.

"Based on what I knew at the time, I voted 'yes' on the resolution. I wanted to pressure Saddam Hussein into opening his country to inspectors and dismantling any programs he may have had. I was misguided. I had faith in the President and his national security team that they would do the right thing and use war as a last resort. I believed that if it came to war they would get UN support. And I believed that they would give time for inspections to run their course. I was wrong.

"If I had known then what I know now, I would have voted 'No'. It's obvious now that Saddam Hussein did not have the weapons programs our intelligence agencies spoke of. It's now clear that our President and his advisors inflated dubious intelligence. It's clear now that this President has an utter disregard for international institutions and has an unmigitated appetite for war as a strategy to achieve their radical aims.

"If I had known then what I know now, George W. Bush would not have received a vote from me letting him wage war on Iraq. Hindsight is always 20-20. I still would have supported an international effort to inspect Iraq and I still would have supported a UN-backed threat of force to pressure Iraq to disarm.

"This administration has made a complete and thorough mess of Iraq. This war has caused far more damage than it ever should have. Should this war even have occurred? The answer, I believe, is no. Not when it did happen, at least. Had the President followed my advice when I cast my vote, I would not be making this speech right now. He did not. Iraq was a folly. Had I know then what I know now, I would have voted 'No.'"

Discuss intelligently. Please refrain from flames.

[wryter2000]

1. Very good

That's kind of what I assume is going on in his head (maybe the shorter version, anyway :)). That's why he's okay with me.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. This was obviously a well-thought out piece

from a sincere supporter of Kerry. I hope that he or his aids read it. His vote on giving away Congress's constitutional mandate of declaring war is what has kept me from considering him for my support at this time, and he'll have to do something like this to win support.

[clar]

3. The problem with this

is that several Senators spoke explicitly about the conflicting intelligence reports and the unconvincing evidence. Go read some of the speeches given. They're quite detailed. In other words, some Senators said there was enough information to make an informed no vote.

[sandnsea]

4. Disagree

He didn't vote for the resolution just because of what Bush said. He voted for it because of what he knew, what you state early in your piece. Bush's lies don't change the reality of Kerry's belief that Iraq needed to be dealt with. That's why it is perfectly consistent to say, "Yes we needed to deal with Iraq because of Saddam's history and the harm to the Iraqi people caused by the sanctions. Bush bungled it with his lies, his misrepresentations to the American people, circumventing the UN, alienating the world, and rushing into a war without letting the inspectors finish their job. Bush further bungled it by not having a plan to win the peace." His position is fine with me.

[UnapologeticLiberal]

5. Exactly

I have said many a time that Kerry should come out and say "the President lied, and I based my vote on his lies, and if I had it to do over again, knowing what I know now, I would vote no." Tom Harkin said that and I think a few other people who voted for the war later said they regretted it...I think Kerry would get a lot of respect if he were to come out and say "I was wrong," something you rarely hear from a politician.

Help make this a September to Remember

[Egnever]

6. I have to dissagree

The whole president lied to me thing works if you were an average joe on the street like you or me with no acccess to the inteligence reports. Kerry had acccess to those reports if he choose not to look at them and bassed his support on what bush was saying then hes a fool.

Let me remind everyone once again.

(Videotape, October 9, 2002):
SEN. KERRY: Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing weaponizing of a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles, such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives which would bring them to the United States itself.
In addition, we know they are developing unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents.
According to the CIA’s report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that they are seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop them.
In the wake of September 11, who among us can say with any certainty to anybody that the weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater, a nuclear weapon?
(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Unmanned aerial vehicles...
SEN. KERRY: Sure.
MR. RUSSERT: ...a nuclear threat. Those are exactly the things that you suggested in New Hampshire President Bush had lied to you about.
SEN. KERRY: That’s precisely the point. That is exactly the point I’m making. We were given this information by our intelligence community. Now, either it was stretched politically in the many visits of Dick Cheney to the CIA and the way in which they created a client relationship, but the information we were given, built on top of the seven and a half years of what we knew he was doing, completely justified the notion that you had to respond to give the president the right to put inspectors in. The president said
when he put them in “War is not inevitable.” Colin Powell said to us, “The only rationale for going to war was weapons of mass destruction,” and it was legitimate to hold Saddam Hussein accountable to get the inspectors in. I’m saying to you that I don’t believe this president did the job of exhausting the remedies available to make us as strong as we should have been in doing that and certainly didn’t do the planning to be able to win the peace in the way that we need to. And I still think we can do it, Tim, but we’ve got to
get about the business of doing it.
MR. RUSSERT: But you had access to the intelligence. You had access to the national intelligence estimate...
SEN. KERRY: Absolutely.
MR. RUSSERT: ...which said the CIA had a low confidence in Saddam Hussein using weapons of mass destruction or transferring the terrorists. And the State Department, which is included in the national intelligence estimate, said there was not a compelling case, that he reconstituted his nuclear program.
SEN. KERRY: I didn’t base it on the nuclear, but the most important and compelling rationale were the lack of inspections and the non-compliance of Saddam Hussein. Even Hans Blix at the United Nations said he is not in compliance.
MR. RUSSERT: Were you misled by the intelligence agencies? Were you duped?
SEN. KERRY: No, we weren’t

[sandnsea]

7. You're exactly right

Which goes back to him being thoroughly pissed at what Bush did with the intelligence and misrepresenting it to the American people and the UN. While at the same time knowing that the "most important and compelling rationale were the lack of inspections and the non-compliance of Saddam Hussein. Even Hans Blix at the United Nations said he is not in compliance."

He said what his reason was for voting for the resolution in his speech in October. He stands by that decision, but blames Bush for totally corrupting the process of dealing with Saddam.

[Egnever]

8. I just cant seem to wrap my head arround that

The IWR vote hapened before inspectors hit the ground. Blix didnt say anything about Sadam not being in compliance till after that vote was made, and then I think blix's comments were closer to "Sadamn is not in yet in compliace" aded with a caveate of "progress being made"

At no time did Blix ever say that Sadam "had" WMD.

I think it was pretty clear at the time of the vote what bush was doing. In fact the IWR was really only done because congress was threatening to rebell if bush went ahead with this war without at least consulting them. I think it was very clear bush was going to go to war from the get go. I dont think bush corupted the process at all. I think he bent to it a little bit by giving lip service to congress and the UN then procedding as plannned. We heard rummored launch dates for the war before the IWR even happened.

Again I have to say if you were fooled you are a fool. I dont for a second think kerry is a fool.

[sandnsea]

9. Read the reports

Going back years and years. He's been saying it since 1992.

"This considerable activity would not have been possible without a certain amount of cooperation by Iraq, but the results would have come much faster and with much less pain if Iraq had fully and spontaneously complied with its obligation under the resolutions of the Council and the exchange of letters with the Secretary General of the United Nations."

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/iaea/dgsp1992n20.html

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

10. We invaded a country that posed no viable threat to us.

I'll give you WMD. Still not a viable threat. No ICBM capability. US forces in the Gulf. Surrounded. No-fly zones. Militarily superior neighbors. It was a no-brainer, imo.

What I'd like to hear from John Kerry is this:

"Chimp lied to me personally. I'm not going to shut up until I get some Goddamn answers!"

[sandnsea]

12. The whole picture

Are people just incapable of dealing with the entire situation all at once. Seriously Rummy, I've given you the facts too damn many times for you to try to pick and choose what you want to argue about. You are entirely ignoring the sanctions and the problems those were causing. You're ignoring the problems with our military in Saudi Arabia. You're ignoring the fact that no inspectors had been in the country for years. It wasn't one thing, it wasn't even particularly Bush, it was a pattern. Kerry chose to go ahead and deal with the entire situation. Bush chose to be a madman.

And it seems in the last debate he said he can't know whether Bush lied because he doesn't even know whether Bush read the reports in question. It's easy enough for people to throw around language, but when you have a position of responsibility, you have to use language carefully. And I don't know exactly what is happening on actual investigations in Congress. I've heard Pelosi and Kennedy be upset, but upset people in the minority don't necessarily get things their way. I'm just waiting to see what happens as Congress gets going after the August recess.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

14. Let's look at the whole picture.

Sanctions.

As I've pointed out to you before, what do sanctions have to do with it? Remove the fucking sanctions. Solved.

US forces on Saudi soil.

Remove the forces. Solved. We have an operational geopolitical base in Israel. As well as a naval platform in the Mediterranean Sea, the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea and the Arabian Sea.



War is not an answer unless you're attacked or on the verge of being attacked. And that wasn't even close to being the situation in Iraq.

[sandnsea]

18. Oooh, you wanted to leave Saddam alone

Just come home and forget the whole thing. Well, that's an option. Not a very good one, but it's an option.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

21. Uh...noooooo.

Surrounded. Contained. And more importantly, dead in a couple of years. If you need an example, look to Cuba. Regardless of your perspective on Cuba, they are/were a more demonstrable threat to the US due to their proximity and their connection to Cold War Russia. Did we invade? There's your answer.

[sandnsea]

24. Uh...nooooo

Surrounded and contained... then how do you do this? The sanctions and the forces in Saudi were a big part of 'surrounded and contained'.

"Sanctions.

As I've pointed out to you before, what do sanctions have to do with it? Remove the fucking sanctions. Solved.

US forces on Saudi soil.

Remove the forces. Solved. We have an operational geopolitical base in Israel. As well as a naval platform in the Mediterranean Sea, the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea and the Arabian Sea."

And, Saddam had those pesky sons, so him dying wasn't necessarily a solution. And as to Cuba, they were alot closer and we were able to keep a much closer eye on them. They never invaded another country, let alone two. There is more western influence in Cuba than the Middle East. It's a completely different situation.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

26. Let's see....

In 6 months we're at $150B+ for this war. Don't forget all the dead people(I hope you wouldn't want to do that. Pesky dead people). Previously, the cost of containment was only a billion or two a year. Cheap at any price.

And as to Cuba, they were alot closer and we were able to keep a much closer eye on them.

Ever heard of satellites? Informants? Operatives? Two thirds of the country was effectively outside the control of SH and his progeny. He was contained.

War is not a solution. It's the problem. Or do you disagree?

[sandnsea]

27. Still picking and choosing

You just go back and forth, back and forth. You've ignored the sanctions and Saudi problem again. That's how the containment worked.

And obviously satellites, informants and operatives weren't enough to let us know what bin laden was planning. It wouldn't be enough to let us know what Saddam was planning.

There are alot of problems that led to the current problem. That's why I want someone who thoroughly understands them to lead the country. And the only one who is capable of handling everything we face is John Kerry.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

29. Last time.

You just go back and forth, back and forth. You've ignored the sanctions and Saudi problem again. That's how the containment worked.

I'm not ignoring sanctions or US troops on Saudi soil. Containment had nothing to do with sanctions, imo. Once again, containment had nothing to do with sanctions.

Containment wasn't achieved by US forces in Saudi Arabia either. I repeat, containment wasn't achieved by US forces in Saudi Arabia either. I'm repeating so that you won't charge me of ignoring it, ok?

Containment worked for these reasons: 1. Massive US air power in the region. It doesn't matter if that air power was based in SA or carriers in the Gulf. The only difference is flight time. 2. Two thirds of Iraq was effectively contained through the no-fly zones. 3. Iraq was surrounded on all sides by militarily superior neighbors. Turkey, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia. And don't forget Israel, a nuclear power. Sanctions and troops on SA soil are hardly the reasons why containment worked. They are actually quite superfluous to the reason why it was working.

And obviously satellites, informants and operatives weren't enough to let us know what bin laden was planning. It wouldn't be enough to let us know what Saddam was planning.

That's right. The world is a scary place filled with unknowns. However, there is an historical known: Invading countries, toppling leaders, installing puppets, redrawing maps, etc. will result in terrorism and terrorists. Ask the British, ask historians about Alexander's forays in the ME and, oh yeah, ask America. Terrorism is a result of oppression and domination. Exactly the formula we're using there right now. A 1000 years of history tells us that this policy will fail. And just how was Saddam a threat to the U.S.? You keep skipping by that little fact. WMD? Nope. Earlier I was willing to give you the assumption that he had them. Did he have missles capable of reaching the US? Nope. If he attacked Israel with them would Iraq be a radioactive wasteland? Yep. Where is this urgent threat that demanded a pre-emptive invasion?

There are alot of problems that led to the current problem. That's why I want someone who thoroughly understands them to lead the country. And the only one who is capable of handling everything we face is John Kerry.

Kerry, ignoring history, lack of evidence and common sense, voted for this war. How that makes him the "only one capable" of getting us through this mess, escapes me.

[sandnsea]

34. Wow!

You just make it up as you go along. You're suggesting ISRAEL be put forward as a military power against Iraq??? Or that we leave the ME to dissolve into wars amongst themselves? You just pretend the sanctions weren't important with absolutely nothing to back up your statement. And you are also ignoring the UN resolutions. Disarming Iraq WAS a worldwide goal. That's why we have agencies like the IAEA in the first place. Nobody in the world believed Saddam didn't have WMD in October of 2002. Kerry never said Iraq was about imminent threat to the U.S., nor have I. Those are Bush's lies put out to justify his mad rush to war, criticized repeatedly by Kerry. You're the only one ignoring history here, I don't think Howard Dean has even made the kind of wild statements you just have. Spin it around any way you want, but it doesn't change reality. Dean has proven he doesn't have the knowledge to handle world affairs, Kerry has proven that he does. And if you'd read anything he had to say on the ME, you'd know he believes in engagement and building the region up, not military threats and occupation. If Iraq had been handled exactly the way Kerry said, we'd be in a MUCH different situation today and moving forward to real stability in the ME.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

40. Perhaps you need a reading comprehension class.

You're suggesting ISRAEL be put forward as a military power against Iraq???

Uh, no. If you had read in a comprehensive manner you would have understood that Israel, along w/ Turkey, Syria, Iran and SA were balancing powers to any perceived Iraqi threat.

Or that we leave the ME to dissolve into wars amongst themselves?

Uh, no. Point to where I said the US should remove it's presence from the ME.

You just pretend the sanctions weren't important with absolutely nothing to back up your statement.

Uh, no. I said they were unimportant in relation to making containment work(and noted that it was imo). Not that they were unimportant or desirable on their face.




And you are also ignoring the UN resolutions.

Uh, no. If UN resolutions were so damned important the United States would have pre-emptively attacked Israel. Because, you see, Israel had/has more outstanding UN Resolution violations than Iraq did/does.

Disarming Iraq WAS a worldwide goal. That's why we have agencies like the IAEA in the first place. Nobody in the world believed Saddam didn't have WMD in October of 2002.

That's why the world joined us when we attacked, right? Oh, that's right they didn't. No WMD? Scott Ritter said they were over 90% destroyed. Not to mention that I said "I'll give you WMD." Doesn't make any difference.

Kerry never said Iraq was about imminent threat to the U.S., nor have I.

Uh, no. Kerry DID say Iraq was an threat:

I have said publicly for years that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein pose a real and grave threat to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region.http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

Dean has proven he doesn't have the knowledge to handle world affairs, Kerry has proven that he does.

Please provide a link to the proof. I'd like to see it. Dean and Kucinich were RIGHT on the war. Kerry was WRONG. How that translates into Kerry being better on FP escapes me.

If Iraq had been handled exactly the way Kerry said, we'd be in a MUCH different situation today and moving forward to real stability in the ME.

With this I agree. Unfortunately, Chimp was given power by Kerry. Not the other way around. As a BFEE connoisseur, Kerry should have realized his tragic mistake.

[sandnsea]

44. I guess you're not saying anything

The solutions aren't really the solutions. The ME hasn't repeatedly dissolved into disarray without US involvement. An imminent threat is the same thing as a pattern of behavior. The UN didn't pass Resolution 1441. Howard Dean didn't say Saddam was a threat. Kucinich and Dean have presented a solution. The Chimp didn't have the same power Clinton had with Kosovo or Haiti, it all came from that resolution. Black is white, up is down, we're through the looking glass again.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

67. Goodbye.

[loyalsister]

32. Another subversion

I've been willing to give them all the benefit of the doubt on the IWR, because I have thought that they have a much larger sense of responsibility on their shoulders. However, I would also like an explanation and an admission to being fooled and wrong about that vote.
If Kerry did cast his vote based on things NOT in the bill, whatever good intentions he may have had, I would not be impressed by a tricky subversion of the process to end the sanctions. If that was a justification he wanted, he should have gotten it into the resolution.

[polpilot]

41. Simple, easy to understand points. Saddam was not a threat to the U.S.

Bush's nat'l publicity campaign was only bought by the easily led. Bush & Co. created a nightmare from an annoyance. Absolutely crazy.

Dean '04....

[Egnever]

11. that was a great link!

thanks for that.

Something i would like to point out about that report. This section here goes to the heart of the matter for me.


Mr. President,

Large facilities and large amounts of equipment required for the production of nuclear weapons usable material and nuclear weapons by Iraq have been destroyed, removed or rendered harmless. New facilities cannot easily be built without detection and the import or production of new relevant equipment will meet great obstacles. What certainly remains in Iraq, however, is a large number of highly trained scientists and engineers who were engaged in its nuclear programme. Information supplied to our inspection teams suggests that these people are currently engaged in the civilian reconstruction of the country. Needless to say, it is important that these highly qualified cadres remain engaged in non proscribed activities.



The report does contain information on Saddams reluctance to comply however the parafraph above seems to point out that while there was a program in place it was at the time of this report thought to have been desabled and soon to be destroyed with little resistance from the Iraqi government.

It certainly would not lead me to believe we needed to attack them thats for sure.

[sandnsea]

13. And this is 1992

Before the defector and other nuclear information was discovered.

Regardless, this isn't the only piece of information on Iraq over those 10 years. It was an entire situation, not bits and pieces here and there. Inspections had to happen to resolve the situation in Iraq. Kerry voted to move forward with inspections and diplomacy and war as a last resort. Bush chose to rush headlong into war.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

16. You're beating a dead horse, imho.

If you think it was the right thing to do, fine. All evidence points to the contary, however.

[sandnsea]

19. Evidence points to Bush as a fuckup

Resolving the situation in Iraq was not the wrong thing to do. The way Bush chose to do it was the wrong thing to do.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

30. Agreed. Chimp is a fuck-up.

[Egnever]

20. I understand the reasoning you are using

But still I dont buy it. If in fact his intention was to force inspections only then why did he not go with the Biden Lugar plan? did it not attempt to enforce inspections while giving a timetable for compliance with resulting action to be determined if in fact there was no compliance?

I am not entirely clear on the chronology of the defector. What exactly was the result if the defector after 92? I know that his testamony was held for all to see but didnt his testamony also indicate that all nuclear programs had been abandoned?

I find all of this stuff completely horifying as well as uterly fascinating.

Thanks for the civil replies throughout.

[sandnsea]

23. Wha???

Biden-Lugar wasn't an option.

His testimony led to alot of new information about the nuclear program that the IAEA totally missed. The important part is that it was information Saddam DID NOT disclose. No cooperation. That was what I was referring to. In my mind, in order to lift sanctions you would want a willing cooperation to disarm. That pattern existed for years.

At the same time, I want to make really clear. At the time of the invasion, I don't believe there was a risk to US security. I also believe we DO need UN authorization to enforce UN resolutions. So I don't think the war was legal or moral. I think Bush behaved abhorrently and I think Kerry thinks that too. But that's not what Bush was authorized to do. And no, nobody except a clairvoyant could have 'known' Bush would behave as badly as he did.

[Egnever]

37. yet we find now

That saddam was in fact cooperating. We just chose to dibelieve his explanations of the disposition of the WMD and Nuclear capabilities.

He was saying all along that he did destroy them. We kept saying prove it!

Id say the proof is in the pudding. How long have we been there now? Still no WMD Still no nuclear. Saddam was cooperating he had destroyed them. Our inability to find anything and the downplay of the Kay report pretty much proves this.

The huge problem with all of this is that Bushes agenda had absolutely nothing to do with the truth about Saddam or Iraq. It was a pnac agenda from the get go in order to reform the ME Sanctions were just a usefull tool to manipulate the american public and aparently John Kerry

[sandnsea]

39. Hans Blix didn't think so

No UN inspector said Saddam was cooperating, not one. As I stated below, you simply cannot take what you think you know today and slap it on the reports from the last ten years and try to make an argument out of it. Iraq was our situation and the U.S. had a responsibility to deal with it. Leaving the Iraqi people under sanctions was not reasonable and quite cruel. Voting to deal with it and pushing this Administration to use diplomacy and a measured response is quite reasonable. That Bush ignored the entire world and pushed ahead with his agenda and that is on HIM.

[Egnever]

42. I beg to differ

"In his report, Blix applauded Iraq on several points:"

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/28/sprj.irq.main/

The media spun blix's reports widely here in america they were far less damning than you are trying to paint them here.

[sandnsea]

45. I read his words

Maybe you didn't.

[Egnever]

46. Trust me I read everything i could get my hands on

And blix never said Iraq had WMD or Nuclear weapons.

[sandnsea]

48. Cooperation

Cooperation. He said he was not getting the cooperation so he couldn't say one way or the other.

[Egnever]

49. on the contrary

Bix's report to the security council


http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm


"The implementation of resolution 687 (1991) nevertheless brought about considerable disarmament results. It has been recognized that more weapons of mass destruction were destroyed under this resolution than were destroyed during the Gulf War: large quantities of chemical weapons were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision before 1994. While Iraq claims – with little evidence – that it destroyed all biological weapons unilaterally in 1991, it is certain that UNSCOM destroyed large biological weapons production facilities in 1996. The large nuclear infrastructure was destroyed and the fissionable material was removed from Iraq by the IAEA."



"I turn now to the key requirement of cooperation and Iraq’s response to it. Cooperation might be said to relate to both substance and process. It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, notably access. A similar decision is indispensable to provide cooperation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion through the peaceful process of inspection and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course. An initial minor step would be to adopt the long-overdue legislation required by the resolutions.



I shall deal first with cooperation on process.





Cooperation on process


It has regard to the procedures, mechanisms, infrastructure and practical arrangements to pursue inspections and seek verifiable disarmament. While inspection is not built on the premise of confidence but may lead to confidence if it is successful, there must nevertheless be a measure of mutual confidence from the very beginning in running the operation of inspection.



Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable."

[sandnsea]

51. What is wrong with you?

Do you think I can't read? Why do you insist on ignoring whole parts of this report?

It starts:

"Resolution 687 (1991), like the subsequent resolutions I shall refer to, required cooperation by Iraq but such was often withheld or given grudgingly. Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance – not even today – of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."

"In this updating I am bound, however, to register some problems."

It goes on:

"The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser enrichment of uranium support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. This interpretation is refuted by the Iraqi side, which claims that research staff sometimes may bring home papers from their work places. On our side, we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes.

Any further sign of the concealment of documents would be serious. The Iraqi side committed itself at our recent talks to encourage persons to accept access also to private sites. There can be no sanctuaries for proscribed items, activities or documents. A denial of prompt access to any site would be a very serious matter."

It's a PATTERN. He says Not Even Today. His reports in February were even more to the point on cooperation. There is a difference between cooperation in substance and cooperation in process.

[Egnever]

53. I am not ignoring them at all

The problem here is you are aproaching this from a saddam was guilty point of view here. I do not. I come from the point of view that Saddam was contained and had no active programs because the containment made it impossible.

Blix in this report is clearly coming from the viewpoint that he believed they were there. And your absolutely right the difference is between process and substance.

Everything blix says goes to Iraq cooperatiing with the process. The problem is they didnt believe the substance of what Saddam was giving them. They didnt want to believe it. Problem is it was true. The substance was real. The inspectors and the US coalition in particular refused to believe it is all.

There is no substance in blixes report pointing to any proff of any WMD or Nuclear programs only a lack of evidence of any.

Again I looked at the sanctions. I loooked at the poil for food program. THERE WAS NO WAY IN HELL SADDAM WAS PRODUCING ANYTHING!

I come from the starting viewpoint of it being bulshit to begin with. You come from the starting point that Saddam was guilty.

That I think is why we see this differently.

The evidence to date points to me being on the right side of this though.

[sandnsea]

54. So it's Hans Blix' fault

I come from the point of view of reading ten years of reports. That's the point of view a responsible member of the Senate would have to come from too.

Like I said, if you're saying the solution was just to lift sanctions and pull out of the ME, then we have a strong disagreement. Because no matter what Saddam was or wasn't doing between 1998 and 2002, it doesn't change his basic character and what he was likely to do if sanctions were lifted. And that's based on reports from people a whole lot smarter than I am, from all over the world.

[Egnever]

57. I think you are confusing posters

I never said the solution was lifting sanctions and pulling out of the ME.

Ten years of reports of what? Clearly you didnt read the reports. The infractions past 95 were all minor of the few that were found.

Again i Say it we have been raping Iraq from the start. We continue to do so. The sanctions were in danger of colapsing we were about to loose our strangle hold. Something had to be done.

That was/is the rational of the US government/bush. And it is why we are there now. Saddam is was and always will be a puppet in the game. Kerry knows this

Lifting sanctions doesnt mean all of a sudden Saddam goes hog wild. People track the precursors of WMD and Nuclear weapons. The world would know pretty quickly if he tried and part of the lifting of sanctions was based on ongoing inspections to verify compliance.

Do I think Saddam wanted to get his hands on whatever he could to defend his country? You bet I do! But I dont for a second think he was able to pull it off under the conditions he was under. Again i think I am being proven right on this as time goes by.

I also dont for a second believe he had any intention of Attacking the US at any point.

[sandnsea]

59. I can't do this anymore

"The world would know pretty quickly if he tried and part of the lifting of sanctions was based on ongoing inspections to verify compliance."

What fucking inspections? There were no goddamn inspections.

[Egnever]

61. First off let me say

That this has been a very interesting discussion. I think you have made a lot of good points. I am sorry if you feel exasperated by this conversation as I think it has been a good one.

Now,

I was only responding to the lifting of sanctions because you brought it up. I think you were confusing me with rummy as you two seem to have a convo going on about that.

As the UN resolutions stood and still stand in order for the sanctions to be lifted there would have to be ongoing inspections. And inspectors were back on the ground.

Yes the new UN resolution got the inspectors back in and yes the IWR did give amunition when he went in front of the UN. Did he need the IWR in order to get that same resolution? I dont think so. The case could have been made very easily without it.

[sandnsea]

64. See below

They tried to get inspectors back in. No real progress was made until it became clear a US resolution was going to be passed.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

15. Missed this part:

Mr. President,

Large facilities and large amounts of equipment required for the production of nuclear weapons usable material and nuclear weapons by Iraq have been destroyed, removed or rendered harmless. New facilities cannot easily be built without detection and the import or production of new relevant equipment will meet great obstacles. What certainly remains in Iraq, however, is a large number of highly trained scientists and engineers who were engaged in its nuclear programme. Information supplied to our inspection teams suggests that these people are currently engaged in the civilian reconstruction of the country. Needless to say, it is important that these highly qualified cadres remain engaged in non proscribed activities.



On edit: Sorry Egnever. Important enough to note twice, though.

[sandnsea]

17. 1992

He was WRONG!! Did you miss my post?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

22. No, I didn't. Here it is again:

And this is 1992

Edited on Sun Sep-21-03 10:08 PM by sandnsea
Before the defector and other nuclear information was discovered.

Regardless, this isn't the only piece of information on Iraq over those 10 years. It was an entire situation, not bits and pieces here and there. Inspections had to happen to resolve the situation in Iraq. Kerry voted to move forward with inspections and diplomacy and war as a last resort. Bush chose to rush headlong into war.


Point out the part that you think is important.

[sandnsea]

25. Read the whole thread

"most important and compelling rationale were the lack of inspections and the non-compliance of Saddam Hussein. Even Hans Blix at the United Nations said he is not in compliance."

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

31. Read posts #11 and #15 again.

They put the above statement in context.

[sandnsea]

35. Pay Attention

1992. He was wrong. Wrong. Do you get that?

I've posted before, pretty sure to you. 1998. Scott Ritter, paraphrased, "Saddam would be able to have bio/chem weapons within 6 months of sanctions being lifted and is very likely to do just that."

Reports. Lots and lots and lots of them. A pattern of behavior. Saddam does not cooperate with disarmament. Fact. And that's the reason the UN repeatedly chose to stay engaged with Iraqi disarmament.

[Egnever]

36. 1992. He was wrong. Wrong. Do you get that?

I do get that.

And therin lies the problem. It apears to me as if throughout this whole fiasco the prevailing sentiment was to ignore facts on the ground in favor of an Idea that Saddam was a bad guy and defying the US.

He certainly resisted being dissarmed, however at no time was there ever concrete evidence that he was reconstituting his programs.

Scott ritter also said that 95% of saddams weapons and weapons programs had been destroyed before the inspectors left.

The bottom line here for me is Iraq was no threat to us at any time except in the most far fetched scenarios. We had no evidence to support an invasion.

Add to that the fact that we were using sanctions and the Oil for food program to rape Iraq. There was no threat ever. This is a continuation of the US's attempt to controll Iraqi resources pure and simple something we have been doing now or trying to do for a long time.

The IWR actually had nothing to do with the real situation on the ground whatsoever. It was presented as part of the war on terror. As such it was a complete fabrication and No one in thier right mind should have voted for it.

[sandnsea]

38. The facts on the ground

You keep picking and choosing which facts you want to present. Every UN inspector said Saddam was not cooperating. Hans Blix said it in February of this year. Scott Ritter said 95% of the weapons had been destroyed but he also said Saddam could and likely would reconstitute within 6 months of lifting sanctions. Therein lies the problem. You simply cannot take what you think you know today and slap it on the facts on the ground over the last ten years to make an argument. And you cannot ignore the problems Iraq presented in the ME overall and the instability Saddam created. It was a problem that needed to be dealt with. I have yet to hear what Howard Dean's plan would have been in regards to Iraq. John Kerry had a sensible plan to deal with Iraq and has a humane plan to deal with the ME in general.

[Egnever]

43. I think you are missing my point entirely

Fact is if you go back and actually look at any of these reports from any of these inspectors there is no hard evidence anywhere of saddam having any WMD or nuclear programs. It was clear then and its clear now this was a setup from the start. We suplied them with the weapons then blamed them for not having prooof we destroyed what they gave them. We went on from there to use that lack of prooof to completely rob Iraq of any chance of being a functioning nation.

The point i am trying to make to you is the US position towards Iraq has been wrong from the start. From the very begining. Even kerry agreed back when all this started. To buy into it based on inuendo and reports from defectors that even the administration now admits were lying to them. Is an uniformed position from someone who should have known better.

I am not basing my position on what is known now I am basing my position on what i have known since long before IWR. There was no evidence from the get go to suppport the idea that Iraq was producing WMD or Nuclear weapons. In fact everything in place at the time sanctions Oil for food and the no fly zones all pointed to the oposite being true.

You keep trying to make arguments of why it could have been believed to be a reasonable position to take. And yes I agree if all you read was the propaganda surrounding the event then yes it would apear Saddam was doing all the things that Kerry wants to believe he did. If however you look at the real evidence of what was going on you come to realize that it was all a smoke screen put up by the powers that be in order to controll Iraqi resources.

Kerry knows this. I believe in my heart of hearts that kerry is not stupid and is well aware of the reality of what was/is going on Iraq. I also believe in my heart of hearts he voted the way he did based on political gain not on anything even close to the reality of the situation of what was going on.

I refer you back to post #6 where kerry clearly states

"According to the CIA’s report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that they are seeking nuclear weapons."

This is every bit as much a lie as was bushes using the same talking points in his 16 words speach.

An kerry admits to the lie further on here

But you had access to the intelligence. You had access to the national intelligence estimate...
SEN. KERRY: Absolutely.
MR. RUSSERT: ...which said the CIA had a low confidence in Saddam Hussein using weapons of mass destruction or transferring the terrorists. And the State Department, which is included in the national intelligence estimate, said there was not a compelling case, that he reconstituted his nuclear program.

He was lying in his speech every bit as much as bush was or he was not doing his research on a very important subject.

I tend to believe he wasnt doing his reasearch and was relying on what everyone else was saying/spinning at the time to justify a vote that his constiuents went so far as to protest him making in front of his offices.

It was a bulshit justification then and an even more bullshit justification now that theres no way in hell the whole WMD nuclear threa stuff holds any water at all.

I think he knew it was the wrong thing to do and chose to ignore that and go with what was politicaly expedient. Going so far as lying to the floor of the senate in his speach in order to try to justify it.

I know this is a very harsh post but I think you are completely missing the point I am making here.

[sandnsea]

47. no

You're just wrong. The nuclear threats. Fine, at the time of those statements, we didn't know those nuclear reports were lies. That information wasn't known in October. There is a difference between Saddam actually being in the process of reconstituting a nuclear program and looking towards that possibility. It isn't a reason to go to war, it IS a reason to get inspectors back in. It IS a reason to deal with the situation at hand. Based on 10 years of reports and behavior. If you don't want to believe ANY of the 10 years of intelligence, the only logical solution is to lift sanctions and pull out of Iraq and the ME altogether. If that's your position, then we just strongly disagree.

[Egnever]

50. YES WE DID!!!!

That's the point!!!! We did know at the time! The CIA reports said it!


Sigh on edit: Someday I will learn to proofread before I post

[sandnsea]

52. AAAAGGGGHHHHHH

The Administration knew about the forgeries. Nobody else knew. Why would you say such a thing?

[Egnever]

55. your trying to avoid the truth i think

But you had access to the intelligence. You had access to the national intelligence estimate...
SEN. KERRY: Absolutely.
MR. RUSSERT: ...which said the CIA had a low confidence in Saddam Hussein using weapons of mass destruction or transferring the terrorists. And the State Department, which is included in the national intelligence estimate, said there was not a compelling case, that he reconstituted his nuclear program.

[sandnsea]

56. That's NOT the issue

That's not it. It's not one single thing. It's a PATTERN of behavior. It's sanctions. It's moving forward so the whole thing could be resolved. That required cooperation. It was repeatedly reported that substantive cooperation did not exist. Threat of military action is the only thing that got inspectors back in. Those were the available facts and the opinions of experts in 2002. That's just the way it was.

[Egnever]

58. Again I Dissagree

Saddam clearly did not want to live under sanctions. Saddam did not order the inspectors out of Iraq in the first place clinton did. There is no evidence that had the united nations tried to get them back under a new resolution he would not have allowed it. He clearly had nothing to hide. Why would he opose it?

Sory but the truth on the ground doesnt support the idea that it would take force to get them in.

[sandnsea]

60. You're making it up

You and Rummy, you just make things up. I swear to god. They did try to get the inspectors back in, Saddam did his little song and dance. Go here, don't go there, maybe this day, maybe not that day. Even with the Resolution it took until December to get inspectors back in without restrictions. You just make things up. It's impossible to have a discussion when you just make things up.

[Egnever]

62. ????

Sry I am not familiar with when they tried to get the inspectors back in and when they refused. Could you please point me to that information? I would like to read about it it might change my mind on this.

[sandnsea]

63. Here's a timeline

http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/Press/Focus/IaeaIraq/chrono_augjan.shtml#july

Please read through to October and note that Iraq did not agree to completely unfettered access. There were always conditions to the inspections. And as memory serves, there was more maneuvering then these briefs report.

And keep in mind, ONLY the Bush Administration knew the fissile material reports were false. I don't think there's any evidence right now that the British knew that. But still, there was a real desire of the IAEA and the UN to get full inspections in Iraq, even before the fissile reports came out. And everything I've posted say that those very inspectors did not think Iraq was fully cooperating. This is NO reason to invade Iraq, but it IS a reason to pressure them with the threat in order to get serious with the process.

[Egnever]

65. great link thank you for that

Interesting read for sure.

A couple of things i find interesting about it. First the fact that inspectors were carying out inspections of Iraqs nuclear facilities even though "arms inspectors" werent in the country. Secondly that Iraq refused to let the "UN spies" back into the country. At the same time they were pushing for reduction of sanctions. I think this points to typical politics. Saddam wants the sanctions lifted the inspectors want unfetered access. There WERE spies in the previous round of inspectors, I dont blame Saddam for his reluctance to alowing them back in unfetered. However his invites to blix to come to Iraq to talk about the inspections I think points to his willingness to do what needs to be done to get the sanctions lifted. He was trying to get the best deal he could. Thats life. When it became clear that he wasnt going to get what he wanted he capitulated and allowed full access. Not his smartest move had he allowed it from the start he would have come out ahead on this thing most likely. However there is no denying that america has/had an agenda against him and his regime and I think he was trying to defend against that in his own mind.

Again i repeat the was absolutely no evidence whatsoever that he was not in compliance only vague suspicians trhat he was not. No reason to give to give the president the go ahead to wage war if he felt like it.

[sandnsea]

66. This is IAEA

The IAEA went in and inspected the nuclear stuff that was under seal. They were not carrying out inspections at nuclear facilities. This is the stuff we didn't secure and that got looted.

The IAEA laid out their conditions for inspections. Just like the UN did. Full inspections or there's nothing to talk about. They'd been down the road too many times. Don't you recall all the news reports last year? Inspections in, no, maybe, we need a meeting, not here, over there, all of that? It went back and forth for months. Iraq didn't agree until after the IWR and 1441.

That does not give Bush a reason to invade. I agree with that. But it does give cause to move forward, threaten force, get inspections going and use military action WITH UN approval.

[phillybri]

28. Terrific post, minus one thing.....

The UN inspectors were not kicked out, they left on their own:

http://www.fair.org/extra/0210/inspectors.html

Other than, this is a great piece...

[ludwigb]

33. Nice post

but as far as I understand it, Kerry remains proud of his vote and believes attacking Iraq was "absolutely the right thing to do." So unless he has flip-flopped again (which he wouldn't admit to), he doesn't regret his vote. And I would second what has already been said about the intelligence available to Kerry at the time. Finally, if Kerry would do my bidding, I would have him renounce this idea that supporting the authorization of force merely to put pressure on the UN (and thus Saddam) was reasonable given the administration we have.