BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs)

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: GUEST,Casual Observer
Date: 17 Jun 04 - 11:33 AM

The point not being that he lied, but that people died while he was President on account of his military decisions.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jun 04 - 12:01 PM

According to what I've been able to dig up, the Somalia thing was a UN humanitarian operation. Some thirty countries were involved, sending in a peacekeeping force of 28,000, 5,300 of which were Americans. That was back in the days when the US considered itself part of the international community. Clinton did not invade Somalia on his own hook the way George W. Bush invaded Iraq. In fact, the troops were originally committed to Somalia by George Herbert Walker Bush, and Clinton inherited it.

No comparison.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: TIA
Date: 17 Jun 04 - 12:18 PM

Thanks for the clarification CO, and the historical context Don Firth.

My (non-rhetorical) question still stands - did he lie to us about Somalia?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: GUEST,Casual Observer
Date: 17 Jun 04 - 12:22 PM

Because Clinton was Commander-in-Chief of the military, doesn't that make him ultimately responsible for military operations that occurred during his administration, whether or not he actually orchestrated said operations himself?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jun 04 - 12:45 PM

Here's a hypothetical:   George W. Bush invades Iraq, makes a mess. "Insurgents" keep blowing up car bombs and shooting at Americans and the Iraqis who cooperate with them. In November 2004, John Kerry wins the election, and on January 20th, 2005, he assumes office. On January 25th, "insurgents" blow up a car bomb in front of a Baghdad hotel, killing a whole bunch of American troops, diplomats, and members of the press. Since Kerry is now Commander-in-Chief of the military and this happens on his watch, does that make him ultimately responsible?

It strikes me that if something bad happens while you're trying to clean up someone else's mess, it's pretty hard to say that you are responsible.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: TIA
Date: 17 Jun 04 - 01:26 PM

Yes, but did he lie to us about Somalia?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: Nerd
Date: 17 Jun 04 - 01:54 PM

BeardedBruce, we are arguing at cross purposes. I was arguing that the article posted by CO was poor propaganda. I wasn't really arguing against your slightly more measured stance. Once again, the headline:

UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after

Even by the lead, they have equivocated to "WMD components." Which components? Why, the ones that do not cause mass destruction, of course. By the time we get to the quotes, it turns out they are talking about scrap metal from dismantled weapons--scrap that obviously WAS revealed to the UN inspectors because it was "replete with UN tags." Also, some fermenters that we have no evidence were ever part of WMD manufacture.

Are these items actually the same as "weapons of mass destruction?" I have been arguing that no, they are not.

Now, you claim:

I have referred to WMD ( weapons ) and prohibited materials (including the manufacturing facilities and the delivery systems.

Fair enough. I was not arguing against this. I concede that there may have been some prohibited items found. Indeed, I think it's pretty inevitable. Nevertheless, I think the prohibited items that HAVE been found are a less serious matter than you do. We were not told by our President before this war that Iraq had "some prohibited delivery systems." We were told they had weapons of mass destruction and fed hysterical language about the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud. There has since been no evidence that it was true or that the mushroom cloud was even a remote possibility.

(I confess, by the way, that I am suspicious of your handling of evidence. You disregard the military's pronouncements on whether chemical weapons were used on Israel but accept as gospel their pronouncements as to what was found in Iraq. It seems to me you simply believe whatever supports your ideology, regardless of who makes the claim.)

Many Americans were also led to believe that 9/11 and Iraq were somehow linked, which both the "dodgy dossier" author AND now the 9/11 commission, have found to be false. But that's a topic for another thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs)
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jun 04 - 04:38 PM

TIA, I know of no particular lie about Somalia that Clinton might have made. I can't find anything on it, or that he was even accused of lying about anything having to do with Somalia. If you do know of something, please enlighten me.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs)
From: artbrooks
Date: 17 Jun 04 - 05:09 PM

GUEST, Clint Walker: it was in the spring of 1968, perhaps March or April, in Skull Valley, Utah (northeast of Dugway, northwest of Salt Lake City). I was there at the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs)
From: GUEST,Casual Observer
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 02:40 PM

Hypothetically speaking, if Kerry keeps US troops in Baghdad on his watch, and a bombing occurs, then yes, I'd say he was responsible; because as President, he can choose to remove the troops. Just like Clinton could have chosen not to send troops to Somalia.

Now, if there are no US troops present in Baghdad in this hypothetical situation, then no, the President wouldn't be responsible.

I don't think Clinton lied about Somalia, and I already said that wasn't my point. However, he did lie about bringing troops home from Kosovo one year. He had said, in public, they would be home before Christmas, and then later decided they needed to stay longer. Some people considered that a lie, anyway; I imagine some of you will just say it was a change of heart.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs)
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 02:49 PM

It was a tactical change due to developing military situations. Under the circumstances, it could have been really dumb NOT to. Bush had a lot more room to plan in regarding Iraq than Clinton did, because Clinton didn't start his war.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs)
From: GUEST,Casual Observer
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 05:39 PM

No, but he didn't do much to prevent it, either.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 05:49 PM

Nerd:

" You disregard the military's pronouncements on whether chemical weapons were used on Israel but accept as gospel their pronouncements as to what was found in Iraq. It seems to me you simply believe whatever supports your ideology, regardless of who makes the claim.)"

I take into account the fact that I have firsthand testimony, by people who were there. It seems to me that YOU disregard the military's pronouncements on what was found in Iraq, but accept as gospel the prononcements on whether chemical weapons were used on Israel... Different point of view. We can agree to disagree, until more facts are known.

"There has since been no evidence that it was true " ( in ref, WMDs in Iraq:) If one refused to accept any evidence that there were, then there will not be.

I have repeatedly asked what evidence would be acceptable, and never gotten an answer. Why is that? Are those who think that chemical weapons are not WMD so worried that we will find something that even they have to accept as a WMD?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs)
From: TIA
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 06:24 PM

CO's post read:

"No one died when Clinton lied... except for his career...

Didn't that pesky Somalia thing happen on his watch? "

Although CO has clarified, and said that there was no intended implication in this post that Clinton did lie, the linking of these two comments carried (for me, and I'm truly sorry if I misinterpreted) an attempt to equate Bush lying us into Iraq with Clinton's handling of Somalia. My goal has been to determine whether there is any comparison at any level. Don Firth's historical context helped to answer, and the last issue for me was whether there was any record or even accusation of a lie by Clinton. I knew/know of none.

Now to beardedbruce's question: "...what evidence would be acceptable...?" We were told repeartedly that if we did not invade Iraq, there would be a mushroom cloud over our heads, or unmanned drones would deliver chemical or biological weapons to our shores, or at least our allies, or Saddam would build and give nukes to Bin Laden. I would accept as evidence of a truly imminent danger from Iraqi W's of MD the discovery of facilities to make nasty stuff and/or relatively recent (not 10 or 20 year old) nasty stuff, and the vehicles to deliver it nearby and in working order. We were not told before the invasion that it was necessary because there were a few old Iran-Iraq war era chemical mortar rounds, and decrepit rocket parts, and trucks that might be used to incubate nasty microbes -- or possibly to make weather balloon gas. In short I want to see what we were told we would see, and in the quantities and readiness that we were told they would be before I say "yeah, looky here, you were right."

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 06:39 PM

a stockpile of chemical warheads, for existing Iraqi artillary? The facilities to manufacture the chemicals to put in the warheads? Long range rockets, prohibited under UN sanctions?

But thank you for at least having the decency to define what you would accept as proof.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs)
From: Nerd
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 02:03 AM

Hi BeardedBruce.

I did not accept as gospel what the military said about chemical weapons in Israel. There has, in fact, been no evidence at all of this except for your testimony that you've heard it from people who were in Israel. Your friends' evidence was not, by the way, "firsthand" in the traditional sense; the only way to know firsthand if there were chemical weapons would be to see people die before your eyes, and I seriously doubt if your friends did. They heard it on the news or what-have-you, just like we did, and as people have pointed out above, those early reports were soon shown to be mistaken. In the Television Age, their knowledge is no more privileged than anyone else's, unless they literally witnessed death by sarin.

I also did not discount the statements of the military as to what they found. I have conceded that prohibited items were found. I do not think they constitute WMD.

It's the mass destruction that matters to me. For me, therefore, WMD is simply this:

enough of a chemical toxin to kill thousands of people alongside a weapon that was designed or adapted to deliver it

enough of a biological agent to kill thousands of people alongside a weapon that was designed or adapted to deliver it

An atomic or nuclear bomb sufficient to kill thousands of people alongside a weapon that was designed or adapted to deliver it.

I have actually never endorsed or used the term WMD myself, because so many people take it to mean chlorine bleach and ammonia, or mustard gas, or any number of primitive chemical agents that most chemical laboratories or most countries' militaries have. This makes it easy to claim your enemies have WMD. I haven't seen anything in Saddam's remaining arsenal that could have inflicted "mass destruction."

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs)
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 10:39 AM

A mushroom cloud over our heads? Unmanned drones loaded with anthrax? Uranium imported from Niger?

You're welcome.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs)
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 24 Apr 06 - 12:35 PM

Yes, indeed. We should all looky here .

("...Tyler Drumheller, the former chief of the CIA's Europe division, revealed that in the fall of 2002, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and others were told by CIA Director George Tenet that Iraq's foreign minister — who agreed to act as a spy for the United States — had reported that Iraq had no active weapons of mass destruction program...")

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs)
From: bobad
Date: 24 Apr 06 - 12:44 PM

Is anyone surprised by this news?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Apr 06 - 04:09 PM

What? Did they find those booby-trapped Brittney Spears inflatable dolls at last?

What a despicable way to kill Americans! Only Saddam Hussein could come up with something so...so...diabolical! I understand that more than 50 American soldiers and oil industry reps have fallen prey to the seductive charms of these cunningly designed exploding dolls, left scattered around Iraq in camouflaged arms caches. The press, of course, has kept it all pretty hush-hush, because it's an embarrassing way for an American soldier or businessman to die, and they don't want to talk about it. Understandable.

There is no doubt that those Iraqi WMD are among the most awful weapons ever manufactured...even worse than the terrible stuff the Poles had in '39, which prompted the Germans to make a pre-emptive strike on them, as explained by Hitler and Goebbels. Check the historical records.

I think that if the Poles had gone so far as to manufacture similar dolls in large numbers, only making them look like Marlene Dietrich, that the Germans would have lost the war in '39, and the Poles might then have gone on to blackmail the entire world.

A close-run thing, eh? Thank God we have strong-willed leaders who have the courage to attack and overrun other countries before they get a chance to attack us! Yes, indeedy. ;-P

Hail to the Chief!

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs)
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 07 Jul 06 - 11:11 PM

Conspiracy theorists (a possibly growing crowd) may be interested in the July 2006 Issue of Vanity Fair magazine:

The War They Wanted, The Lies They Needed By CRAIG UNGER.

I can't offer any comment on accuracy, etc., and I'm not familiar with either the magazine or the author of the article; but it appears to summarize¹ many of the claims that have been made, in one place.

¹ (summarized in a scant 26 or so pages - use the printer friendly version)

The article was brought to my attention when one of the "key(?) characters" in the article, Silvio Berlusconi, reportedly was indicted on a number of charges quite recently.

The Vanity Fair website promises an article on Ramblin' Jack "next week," which will probably be more interesting to most people.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs)
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Jul 06 - 01:26 AM

Nice disclaimer, JiK!

Thanks for posting the article.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs)
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 08 Jul 06 - 02:12 AM

In the same Vanity Fair issue, (with the same disclaimers, of course):

Blair's Big Brother Legacy by Henry Porter might also be worth a look.

It sort of comes right out and says some of what a few have suggested here. Seeing it all put together in one hatchet job article sort of suggests that Tony and George are now reading from the same book.

I'll note that my brief look at this unfamiliar magazine did reveal that not all their articles are negative. Their spread on Sandra Bullock made her appear quite the nice young lady.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs)
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 08 Jul 06 - 05:41 PM

To me, at least, the most pretty obvious proof that there weren't any WMDs is the fact that Hussein didn't try to use any. Unless someone can suggest to me what he might have been waiting for.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs)
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jul 06 - 06:54 PM

"Churchill lived in far more testing times than ours"

And most here would have vehemently opposed what he had to say and would have shouted him down as a war-monger.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs)
From: gnu
Date: 08 Jul 06 - 07:26 PM

Gee... I just re-read the first post to this thread... I thought everyone knew they were shipped to Syria. Shortly after the invasion, Blair and his buddy appeared arm in arm on TV.... smiling profusely. Laughing gas? Muammar's the word.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs)
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 09 Jul 06 - 11:41 AM

Everyone knows that what they call WMD's were useless remnants. It's a red-herring.

Frank Hamilton