Teribus continues his sycophancy:

Alas, Arne, my little viking, Teribus has hefted no goal posts:
CarolC's statement of 03 Dec 05 - 07:47 AM, remains purely her opinion.

Sure, you did. You are demanding that Dubya use precise and very specific words (your "Simon Says" ploy) to assert that Dubya claimed that Saddam was involved in 9/11. But that wasn't the issue, was it? It was whether Saddam and al Qaeda were in cahoots. That's a "red herring" on your part (although, as shown above, there was an effort to link Saddam specifically to the 9/11 attacks, and there was the insinuation that he was in fact involved [see the Mylroie article]). Actually, going further back up-topic, the original issue was Saddam's WoMD (of which there really were none).

Now so far, between a few of us, the actual words spoken by GWB and members of his administration, within context have been provided.

You misspelled "carefully gleaned and cherry-picked". You accuse us of cherry-picking, but our point (that a link was made between Saddam and al Qaeda) stands even if you post tons of quotes where Dubya doesn't make that assertion (and you have yet to honour a request for a quote where Dubya affirmatively asserts that there was no such tie). But your claim that Dubya made no such claim is disproven by a single quote showing he did so. As has been provided (more than once).

To counter that we have been offered red-herring after red-herring, rumour, cherry-picked sentences taken completely out of context and unsubstantiated opinion....

How about quotes directly from the ass's mouth?

When you are asked to provide links or references, by way of substantiation, you pointedly ignore the subject and then accuse us of 'moving the goal posts'. That is not debate Arne that is wriggling, that is evasion, that is total lack of confidence in your sources of information.

Nope. The "goal post moving" had to do with the claim of Saddam's involvement with 9/11, rather than the broader claim of a Saddam/al Qaeda link (but see above for more on even your more restricted claim).

Arne, I would only believe too readily that you find it difficult to find any statement actually made by members of the current US Administration to support or substantiate points put forward by the likes of yourself - Your English comprehension skills at best are severely impaired, to such a degree, that you have totally grown accustomed to relying on what somebody else has reported and commented on.

ROFL. I would believe that you can't construct an intelligible paragraph. Witness this last one. But if I can guess at your point: no, I rely oon what reputable media (and even disreputable media, such as "www.whitgehouse.gov") report on what the maladministration said.

Now, Arne boy here would like us all to believe that the following never happened, or if it did it was irrelevant:

The Clinton Administration did not write Regime Change in Iraq into US Foreign Policy - Fact is that he did, and I can prove it - Nobody in the US complained when he did it .

"Straw man". I haven't said any such thing.

The Clinton Administration unilaterally ordered attacks on Serbia, Afghanistan, Sudan and Iraq. He did this without first obtaining the consent, or approval from the US Senate, The US House of Representatives, or from the United Nations - Nobody complained

Ditto last comment. Teribus here thinks I shold be responsibel for other people's opinions. I've tendered my own on Clinton's actions. But this persiflage of Teribus's is the "tu quoque" fallacy, and hardly rfelevant to whether Dubya is a horse's arse.

[snip SOS]

But after the US has been attacked, the President and his Administration are pilloried for exercising the power at their disposal to act in the best interests of the country, even after having gone to both houses of Congress, even after having gone to the United Nations.

News flash: Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11!!!! As for the authorisation to invade, that wasn't given explicitly (if we're to use Teribus's "standards" for asserting a position). Various folks thought that force should be threatened but many also thought that was a last resort if Saddam didn't comply, and there was considerable feeling amongst these that Saddam was complying tolerably ... and that we were no where near a last resort state. In fact, the UN Security Council refused to give Dubya an OK for his invasion (and Dubya reneged on his promise to force at least a show of hands, something that Teribus has studiously ignored this entire thread).

Afghanistan had the general concensus of world opinion behind it, maybe not the anti-war, anti-Bush, peace-at-any-price brigade, but enough of the world all the same.

News flash for your: Afghanistan is not located in Iraq. Moving the goal posts a couple thousand Km, eh?

Iraq came into the frame because of non-compliance with outstanding UNSC Resolutions, it was evaluated as a potential threat, it supported international terrorist groups and could possibly support a far more serious attack on the USA than those of 911 - SERIOUS FUTURE POSSIBLE THREAT - i.e. it requires to be dealt with sooner rather than later.

So the "intgelligence" would have you believe. The intelligence was crap. I knew it at the time (and posted a link to prove it). Others did too. Dubya should have known (and quite possibly did).

Mark you I would not expect Arne, to follow this, he is the guy who, as the pilot of an aircraft, does not regard himself being under attack until after he has been shot down - bit late then old son, but then fortunately you will hopefully never be in a position to have to make those sort of judgement calls.

"Straw man" again. I don't believe in overflyign sovereign states with warplanes, attacking targets on the ground, and then going "Waugh, waugh, waugh, they're firing at me!" when the obvious occurs. As I pointed out, the U.S. was deliberately provocative (and this goes for Clinton too, FWIW, but it got worse under Dubya).

As to the...."Plenty of quotes have been given by myself, TIA, Davies, and others by the maladministration making definitive links between Saddam and Iraq."

Unfortunately that is what they have been quoting - themselves, or journalists reports of what that journalist thought was said....

Oh, horsepuckey. We've quoted Dubya, Cheney, etc. Do you deny that they said what reporters said they said?

... Not so fussed about the links between Saddam and Iraq Arne, it would indeed be strange if there were no links between Saddam and Iraq - after all at the time in question he was actually running the place in a pretty hands-on fashion....

You got me, you little nit-picker, you. Now see if you can divine what I meant. Or is that too hard for you?

... The links between Saddam/Iraq and Al-Qaeda were known of from intelligence reports pre-dating GWB's arrival in the White House. But the message that Ron Davies was trying to put across was that GWB and members of his administration were wandering around stating that Saddam/Iraq had a hand in the Al-Qaeda attacks of the 11th September 2001, when in actual fact the direct opposite was the case, I can again prove and give clear examples of that, Ron Davies and the rest of you cannot come up with a single quote to substantiate what you believe to be the case.

They did. You ignored them. Now put up or shut up: Give us a quoet where Dubya et. al. say that there was no involvement of Saddam in 9/11.

The claims of WoMD?? No big lie Arne & Co. Details relating to the unaccounted for stocks, munitions and precursor chemicals thought to exist in Iraq were brought to the attention of the Governments of the World by the United Nations - Not by George W. Bush - Not by Tony Blair. Did GWB and Tony Blair believe the UNSCOM Report - Of course they did, so did everybody else at the time - otherwise explain exactly how 1441 got passed. Don't take my word for it, the speeches made by all 15 Ambassadors sitting on the UNSC when 1441 was adopted are a matter of record - They are what they actually said at the time...

Most rational people thought there was uncertainty. Only Dubya said (after the fact, in fact!): "...did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely."

Arne, not what some anti-war, anti-Bush Blogger bashed out on the subject using 20 x 20 hindsight.

I pointed it out beforehand. And I was far from alone.

Again I can provide substantiation for what I am saying - Arne & Co will find it somewhat more difficult.

Ask the docs to titrate the Haldol up a notch.

Arne, at his cherry-picking best,..."Dubya couldn't stop lying afterwards, even, and invented this fantasy (or hallucination? -- scary...) about Saddam not letting the inspectors in (as I posted in an early article here)."

When was UNMOVIC formed Arne?

Irrelevant.

We know that UNSCOM were withdrawn on the advice of the US Government (Clinton) in December 1998 just before "Desert Fox" was launched. After "Desert Fox" did Saddam invite the UNSCOM Inspectors back into Iraq Arne? - No he did not Arne.

No. In part because the U.S. decided that it was a good idea to insert U.S. intelligence resources into the U.N. teams. Bad move, and I've criticised this previously.

But nonetheless irrelevant.

UNMOVIC was formed to replace UNSCOM on 17th December 1999, almost a year to the day that UNSCOM left Iraq. That was the UNSCOM that Saddam had run ragged, deceived, threatened and intimidated for the best part of seven years (Don't bother disputing that Arne, for the proof is overwhelmingly in favour of what I have just said).

Now UNMOVIC, duly constituted by the United Nations were allowed back into Iraq when Arne? 1999 - No; 2000 - No; 2001 - No; 2002 - Yes, right towards the end of the year. Now you can tell us why, you can tell us how that was achieved, can't you Arne.

Yep. UNSCR 1441. But glad to see that even you admit that Dubya's a lying sack'o'shite.

You can also tell us exactly who had kept the UNMOVIC Inspectors out of Iraq in 1999, 2000, 2001 and the first three quarters of 2002 - Couldn't have been Saddam Hussein could it Arne?

Irrelevant.

Now then Arne let's take a look at the President's Statement, made at a Press Conference during question time on the 14th July, 2003, and let us all remember that AT THAT TIME inspections by the US Survey Group were still ongoing:

"The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely."

Now Arne that was true, or are you going to tell us that there were no activities, or programmes, proscribed under the terms of applicable UN Security Council Resolutions taking place in Iraq. Please don't because they are easily verifiable.

Ummmm, there's that famous waffle: "Weapons of mas destruction program-related activities". Not my words, Teribus. That's getting pretty darn pedantic ... and pathetic. About the only program close to a violation was the al Samoud missile, and even that was arguable ... but as I pointed out, Saddam decided forgo any argument and to trash the missiles rather than risk giving Dubya some excuse for his wanton gun-slinging....

"And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

As stated above he had kept the UNSCOM Team out for a year, UNMOVIC out for the best part of three years.

But Dubya said he "wouldn't let them in". See:

Once allowed back in they were not given the full co-operation they were required to have from day 1, despite what Bobert might say to the contrary, the words of Hans Blix, Report to the UN Security Council 7th March 2003:

"Mr. President,

What are we to make of these activities? One can hardly avoid the impression that, after a period of somewhat RELUCTANT CO-OPERATION, there has been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January.

This is welcome, but the value of these measures must be soberly judged by how many question marks they actually succeed in straightening out. This is not yet clear.

Against this background, the question is NOW asked whether Iraq has cooperated "immediately, unconditionally and actively" with UNMOVIC, as is REQUIRED under paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002). The answers can be seen from the factual descriptions that I have provided. However, if more direct answers are desired, I would say the following:

OK. Let's see what Blix says:

The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. It has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.

It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as "active", or even "proactive", these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution CANNOT BE SAID TO CONSTITUTE "IMMEDIATE" CO-OPERATION."

Whoopdedoo. But nonetheless "cooperation". Otherwise the "immediate" becomes superfluous. Words have meaning.

"And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region."

The reasonable request - "You and your regime have 48 hours to quit the country, or we, along with our allies, will remove you by force."

That wasn't in UNSCR 1441. It was WoMD, not regime change.

GHWB's Coalition with full UN backing consisted of 34 different countries back in 1990/1991.

GWB's Coalition consisted of 38 different countries who shared the view of the US that Saddam Hussein was better off being removed from the scene.

If you want to look a real co-operation, and actual contribution, honestly, you'd see what pretty much every rational person has been saying: Dubya did not take the time to build a true coalition as his father did ... and that has been a source of a significant part of our woes there (not to mention $300B and 2000 soldiers down the tubes).

Cheers,