GUEST,Arne Langsetmo - 23 Nov 05 - 02:50 PM, have read through your post and found that it says nothing.

Cheers,

GUEST,Boab - 23 Nov 05 - 02:16 AM

"I think a lid should be clapped firmly down on this thread... There is no debate here; no amount of reason will ever sway some of the characters who haunt this forum."

I couldn't disagree more:

There are a number of anti-Bush/Blair/War types who insist that Bush/Blair/Cheney/etc/etc lied when they said that Saddam had nuclear weapons - they didn't lie of course because none of them ever said that Saddam had nuclear weapons, The anti-war lobby believe it because they wanted to over the pudding, they wanted Bush/Blair et al to have said that - but they never did.

Reference: Amos - 23 Nov 05 - 09:07 AM, now maybe these words are Amos's or maybe they are cut-n-paste from Slate:

"...assumptions that Saddam was DEVELOPING WMD"

"the case that Saddam was TRYING to build nuclear weapons, which he had in fact stopped trying to do in 1991. "We now know that Saddam has resumed his EFFORTS TO ACQUIRE nuclear weapons," Cheney said in August 2002, in one of his conclusive comments on the subject. This position was echoed by Bush and Rice, who both conjured the specter of a mushroom cloud, as well as by Rumsfeld and Colin Powell, who went into more detail about aluminum tubes and uranium."

Now in August 2002, the ONLY people outside Iraq who knew anything with regard to what stocks of WMD Saddam might have and what the status of the Iraqi nuclear programme were UNSCOM/UNMOVIC and the IAEA. Some here might declare that Mohamed Al Baredai clearly stated that Iraq had no nuclear capability at that time (Summer 2002) but he didn't, he did not report that until early in February 2003, the report he gave then indicated that the IAEA's initial task in Iraq would be over within weeks provided that they confirm that Iraq was not pursuing any programme targeted at the development of a nuclear capability.

Other things that we have established Boab:

The Clinton Administration established the US Policy calling for Regime Change in Iraq on 31st October 1998 - long before the arrival on the scene of Republican President George Walker Bush.

Democrat President Bill Clinton attacked Iraq without seeking permission from either Senate or House of Representatives.

Democrat President Bill Clinton attacked Iraq without the permission of the United Nations (He was to do the same again in Kosovo) citing Iraqi non-compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 681 (Safwan Ceasefire Agreement).

Now in all this where was the outcry? - strangely silent

Post 9/11 Republican President George Walker Bush:

- Establishes very early on that Saddam Hussein and Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with the attacks.

- Assists the Northern Alliance in ousting the Taleban from power in Afghanistan.

- Has the Security Committee, Security Services and Intelligence Agencies conduct a threat assessment to identify potential threats to the United States of America. They advise that Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Libya, are all capable of co-operating with any international terrorist organisation with a view to carrying out an attack on America.

- Goes to the UN to refer the as yet unresolved situation with regard to Iraq. This results in unanimous acceptance of UN Security Council Resolution 1441.

- Despatches an American Force to the area to pressure Iraq into allowing the resumption of inspections by UNMOVIC.

- Goes to both Senate and House of Representatives and gets approval for use of force against Iraq.

- After seven material breaches of Last Chance Resolution 1441 Republican President George Walker Bush invades Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power citing material breach of 1441 and non-compliance with 681

Now there are a few similarities there and a number of significant differences. It would appear that GWB did go a damn sight further down the road to get the UN involved than Clinton - who didn't bothered going to them at all - I can now see the wisdom in doing that, maybe GWB should have done the same.

Whereas Clinton supported a policy of containment, post 9/11, GWB did not have that option.

So you see Boab, there's lots to debate, and it would be useful and informative if the anti-war side could just for once provide correct quotations of what key figures actually did say, as opposed to what they thought they said, or what they thought they meant. If just for once they could remain with fact as opposed to fanciful fiction.