BS: Saddam should be charged or released

Subject: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 05:58 AM

Story here

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Hrothgar
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 06:38 AM

To hell with Sod 'em.

Far higher priority should be the poor bastards in Guantanamo Bay - thwy have been there longer, with less apparent cause.

Next should be the people in Abu Ghraib, but the Yanks are going to have a problem letting the peple who have been mistreated out to tell their storeis, or even giving them a chance to air their treatment in court.

I'd say the most likely thing for Sod 'em is that he will be handed over to the new Iraqi government to be shot while escaping.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Pied Piper
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 07:08 AM

Shoot the bastard and have done.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Rapparee
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 09:08 AM

Ah..."hundreds" of prisoners were released again today from Abu Ghraib.

"The release - the fifth major one since the scandal broke - came one day after the U.S. military pledged that as many as 1,400 detainees will either be released or transferred to Iraqi authorities by the June 30 handover of power. The Americans will continue to hold between 4,000 and 5,000 prisoners deemed a threat to the coalition.

Prisoners are periodically freed from Abu Ghraib, which was also notorious for being a torture site during Saddam Hussein's regime. The U.S. military has said it will hand over the facility to Iraqi officials in August."

I found the story at the Associated Press website (it wasn't on the BBC site, at least I couldn't find it there yet).

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: DougR
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 01:54 PM

Interesting. I wasn't aware that the Red Cross had so much power!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 02:39 PM

They have the moral high ground when compared to the Bush administration, at the very least.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Peace
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 08:53 PM

Hussein should be given to the families of his victims.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 10:11 PM

He should be treated with such careful respect and humility as to astonish critics of the U.S. and to allow no room for calls of "abuse" or "kangaroo courts." I think the guards at Abu Ghraib did enough to blacken the U.S. eye in the prisoner care department, don't you?

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 10:22 PM

Well, gol danged if this ain't a perdicermint? First we invade Iraq because it was going to drop a nuclear warhead on us, then because, ahhh, they have WMD's.... 'er they put bin Laden up to 9/11, 'er somethin' like that. Problem was that all them stories were just that. Stories.

So, the Bush folks huddled up and what came out as the reason for invading Iraq is bacause Saddam was a bad man. Well, if the US lets him go then what will be the new excuse for invading Iraq... other than the usual "Clinton did it" excuse???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: freda underhill
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 11:35 PM

This is what we need an international court for - if he is tried and condemned in Iraq, those sentencing/executing him and their families will be subject to retribution from his supporters. People are still very afraid of him and his networks there.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Metchosin
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 01:05 AM

freda, we can't have International Courts! Some misguided soul with an axe to grind, might consider trying an American, God Forbid!!

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Sam L
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 01:28 AM

He should be charged and tried and as good as dead, but a little better. The world's greatest doctors should find a way to keep him alive another 3,000 years or so, while our HMOs spare the rest of us such a fate.

The good reason for war in Iraq was that yes he is a bad man. America can stand and hold some truths to be self-evident, and not be ashamed, and not shame those who have to carry out the orders. That would be the good part, at least in theory.

   Some people have tried so hard in all this to do real good. Think of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Metchosin
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 01:40 AM

and sometimes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions......

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 03:38 AM

Bobert, 14 Jun 04 - 10:22 PM

No predicament at. Just a few points with regard to your post referenced above:

"First we invade Iraq because it was going to drop a nuclear warhead on us,"

With Bobert attention to detail and fact are not strong suits. The statement made by him above is not correct.

"...then because, ahhh, they have WMD's...."

Well almost correct Bobert, the information relating to what WMD (by the way there is no plural) Iraq under Saddam Hussein possessed, or might possess, came from the UN. It was not invented by the current US administration. The January 1999 UNSCOM Report to the UNSC was unanimously accepted and believed by the UNSC to reflect the situation with regard to WMD in Iraq at the time.

"...'er they put bin Laden up to 9/11, 'er somethin' like that."

Name one person in the current US administration who has EVER said that Bobert. If you cannot - then please just for the sake of accuracy stop harping on about it, because it just did not happen, no matter how much you would have liked it too.

"So, the Bush folks huddled up and what came out as the reason for invading Iraq is bacause Saddam was a bad man."

Oddly enough Bobert, the United States of America's declared wish for "Regime change in Iraq" was translated into official US Government policy during the Clinton administration - matter of record - go look it up. So "the Bush folks" had absolutely no "huddling-up" to do, the policy was already firmly in place.

"Well, if the US lets him go then what will be the new excuse for invading Iraq... other than the usual "Clinton did it" excuse???"

I do not think that even the ICRC expect Saddam to be released as such. Saddam Hussein may well be released from US custody, but that is not the same as him being released. He will be handed over by the US to the custody of the Iraqi Interim Government.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: freda underhill
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 03:57 AM

Tuesday, June 15, 2004. 5:07pm (AEST)
Pentagon 'unaware' of Saddam handover plans

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: DougR
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 02:00 PM

By golly, Teribus, you zapped me too with your last post. I've been adding an "s" to WMD in my posts too! That's probably where Bobert got the idea that it was correct. :>)

I also find it necessary to warn you again not to confuse ole Bobert with facts. That West 'Ginny mind of his just won't be up to it!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: jack halyard
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 05:51 AM

Saddam is a bastard who got as far as he did with a substantial amount of US assistance. Pinochet is also a bastard who got where he is with a substantial amount of American assistance, as were the Marcos clan. The United States clearly does not object to bastards who kill, imprison unjustly and torture their own people. It objects to certain types of bastards. The origanal bastard went by the generic terms "Communist" "Pink" and so on. Since the end of the socialist enemy ( but we're not finished yet folks) the new demon has been labelled "Terrorist".

It's worth remembering that Saddam had nothing to do with Bin Laden, he opposed him on doctrinal grounds. He had nothing, apparently, to do with 9/11 either. Since he has now been shown to have no weapons of mass destruction, he does not fit the Bin Laden model of a terrorist, and he certainly didn't blow himself up when they came to arrest him.

The US has made much of the special rules protecting leaders of nations. Whatever else Saddam was, he was a national leader.
If he is not accorded the same rights any normal human being could expect of a nation calling itself a Western Liberal Democracy,
Then future US leaders have grounds to feel very unsefe in the future. As with all held unjustly at Guantanamo Bay, in Abu Ghraib and everywhere else that secret dirty deeds are being done by pentagon stooges, charge him, try him openly and honestly-or let him go.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 06:58 AM

Whatever happens as to be done with careful consideration. All this simplistic putzing about is what got us into this mess.

As for the idea that we either release or charge him, like he's just spent a night in the cells for vagrancy......words fail me

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 10:01 AM

jack:

If S Hussein were accorded the same rights as a normal human, the motherfu#ker would have been shot years ago.

Bruce M

In my opinion, a fitting end for that piece of rubbish (sorry jOhn, I know it gives rubbish a bad name).

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Rapparee
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 10:04 AM

Teribus, you posted:

"...'er they put bin Laden up to 9/11, 'er somethin' like that."

Name one person in the current US administration who has EVER said that Bobert. If you cannot - then please just for the sake of accuracy stop harping on about it, because it just did not happen, no matter how much you would have liked it too."

Bobert's "...'er somethin' like that." prompted me to do some digging. And while there is no overt claim to Saddam Hussein being directly involved in the attacks of September 11, 2001, there is plenty of linkage between Saddam Hussein and al-Quaida made by Bush and Cheney themselves.

I am not going to get involved in this other than to point out what has been reported by various new organizations.

See, for instance:

Cheney says failing to attack Iraq would have been 'irresponsible'

How about this:

Bush backs Cheney on assertion linking Hussein, Al Qaeda

You can find this yourself, too:

Bush stands by al Qaeda, Saddam link

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 10:58 AM

Oh come on. You are asserting that Saddam was linked to bin Laden because George Bush said so?

Dear Gawd. Anything out of his mouth, or Cheney's, is certain to be self-serving. The man has less respect for the truth than anyone I have ever seen. To confuse any assertion of his with a fact is tantamount to intellectual suicide.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 11:25 AM

Edited to keep it short enough to address the discussion at hand. You will be able to find this entire report online easily, I read it here: 9/11 Panel Says Iraq Rebuffed Bin Laden

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 12:28 PM

Hmmmm. Mebbe it's so, an' mebbe it ain't. History has a way of bending to the current appetite. IF this is a correct conclusion, Bush's camp was more cowed than I thought.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Rapparee
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 02:51 PM

Amos, I was responding to Teribus by citing examples of Bush & Cheney claiming links between Iraq and al-Qaida.

I am not going to do more than that, and I'm certainly not going to express my own opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Once Famous
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 04:09 PM

So Amos, you are asserting that Saddam was not linked to Bin Laden because you said so.

Being the big time world leader and Washington insider that you are, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 04:28 PM

The USA should re-instate him with an appology and financial compensation; at the very least give him a job at the UN because of his supreme leadership and humanitarian nature. I am sure he would serve the UN in an exemplary manner.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 06:05 PM

It's not just Amos' say-so. It's nearly everyone who actually knows anything. Comprehensive list here.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Peace
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 06:59 PM

I figure he should be charged, released and THEN shot.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 09:37 PM

Okay, T-Bird, I must confess that I was stoned 'er something and thought that Condi Rice and Dick Cheney both made reference to a "musroon cloud" over our heads when they were busy tryingt to sell their designer war to the American people... I woulda swore that happened but if you say they didn't make those referneces then, geeze, I guess I owe everyone a big apology...

Not! You knothead. I werehn't stoned and they did make those references about Iraq... You can diny it it. Heck, you can deny the sky is blue of the that the Earth revolves around the sun... Knock yer danged knothead self out...

And yeah, the Clinton administartion did favor a regime change in Iraq but didn't exactly leave the orders or blueprint on how to do it on Bush's desk for an invasion. That's your interpretaion which doesn't exactly have any factual basis... Normal for you and yer stickman, Dougie...

Now you want to rewrite the part about the Bush administration's post invasion excuses for invading Iraq. Hey, T-Bird. We have all been here viewing the same chain of events. Just how amny folks do you think you are fooling? Just because you may easily be fooled it's notfail yto assume that everyone is... I'm worried about you, pal. Maybe you should see a doctor about this memory thing. Is it the marriage thing, 'er what. Come on, you can talk to yer ol' hillbilly friend. I won't tell noone else 'round here 'bout nuthing you say...

Okay, I take back the "huddled" word. Happy? Didn't think so. Okay, maybe they just sat around Bush's office with their PR team and came up with their *new and improved* reason for attacking Iraq... Yeah, that's what they did... No huddle... Just a meeting. Okay?

What else did you falsely accuse me of? Hmmmm? Oh yeah, Saddam's link to bin Laden... Was that it? Well, the 9/11 Commission has allready put that one to rest tho Bush thinks he can just out PR them and get it back on the front burner... Speaking of links to bin Laden, I'm a lot more concerned with the Bush family's links to bin Laden and why so many bin Ladens got preferntial treatment in the days after 9/11 in being allowed to leave the US in the only commercial airplane allowed in fly in US airspace in the two day's following 9/11. The story is that some of them had been interviewed by the CIA or FBI and were okay to leave. Is that your story, too, T-Bird. (Watch out. This maybe a trick question...)

Enuff fir now, pal...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 12:09 AM

well, lets see?, kill him

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Peace
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 07:26 PM

How's about releasing him to the tender mercies of the Kurds? They may want to have a few words with this man that so many people feel deserves due process.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: DougR
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 07:49 PM

Interesting comments and opinions. According to news reports yesterday, the Co-Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, stated that the Commission's report does not conflict with what the Bush administration is claiming. Of course the "fair and balanced" New York Times, and Washington Post and Los Angeles Times failed in news stories to point that out. Misinformation is their forte.

And oh, yes, I'm sure you are all aware by now that President Putin also announced that Russia's Intelligence Services had notified the Bush administration of Iraq's plans to attack the U. S.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Peace
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 08:24 PM

Doug: YOU have never trusted Russians (I am making that assumption based on things you've written from a Conservative perspective). On can hardly fault the Bush administration for ignoring that advice, can one?

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: freda underhill
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 08:34 PM

from this weekends sydney morning herald
UN monitoring agencies full of spies, says Wilkie

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 08:42 PM

Impotent spluttering of the Fred Miller variety looks a bit ridiculous when one considers some of the grotesque dictators the US has championed and befriended. Jack Halyward mentioned the Marcoses; my own favourites include Suharto and Mobutu. These two accumulated wealth beyond the dreams of avarice, while bringing their respective countries, Indonesia and Zaire, to the brink of financial ruin. (Suharto indeed made it to sixth place in the world's rich list.)

That was an uncharacteristically shabby post from Teribus. He couldn't have forgotten Condi's vision of a mushroom cloud, so I suppose he was just hoping Bobert had. As for any links between Saddam and Bin Laden, Teribus surely knows that this is a myth. He certainly knows that Bin Laden was hostile to Saddam running Iraq as a secular state. (Bin Laden thinks even Saudi Arabia is much too relaxed about Islam, for goodness sake.) Teribus knows that Cheney never alleged direct Al Qaaeda involvement in 911, but equally he knows that Cheney's constant hints about an Al Qaeda-Iraq axis were calculated to sow confusion in the minds of millions of Americans. And when such confusion was indeed sowed, the admin did not a thing to counteract it.

If Clinton was the first to put regime change on the agenda for Iraq, as Teribus asserts, does this make regime change a legitimate objective for unilateral action in Teribus's book?

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 09:55 PM

According to news reports yesterday, the Co-Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, stated that the Commission's report does not conflict with what the Bush administration is claiming.

I believe it was Condoleeza Rice who said that, in her opinion, what she thought the 9-11 Commission is saying does not conflict with what the Bush administration is claiming. The 9-11 commissioners responded that Ms. Rice is not correct in her interpretation of what they have said. The president and vice president of the Commission have said that the Commission's report does, indeed, conflict with what the Bush administration is claiming.

9/11 Report Cited No Iraqi 'Control' of Qaeda – Rice

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 10:11 PM

Let me see if I have this right, Dougie. The 9/11 Comission says that AlQuida had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush and Cheney say they did and you are telling me that those two opinions as the same? Come on, pal. You are falling for some obvious foolishness on someone's part.

Like other than parroting this obvious incongruent bulldung, pick one story or the other. The Comissions or Bush's. No matter who say they are the same story they aren't. They are 180 degress different.

So you pick one or the other. You can't believe both stories...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 05:06 AM

Amos I'd like to qualify your statement about anything coming out of the mouths of George W Shrub, and Dick 'Head' Cheney being self serving. This applies equally to ALL politicians.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 08:58 AM

Bobert, ya ever hear of cognitive dissonance? Dougie is practitioner& devotee.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Gareth
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 06:28 PM

On the other hand there is the "shot whilst attempting to escape" gambit.

Memory lane time for some, which 'Catter said some 12 months or so ago, pre liberation of Iraq, that SH should be handed over to the Iraqi People.

Or do I have to embarrass the usual culprits again !!!!!

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Peace
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 08:13 PM

Uh, I'm gonna guess it was GARETH?

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Jun 04 - 05:43 AM

OK Peter K (Fionn), let's take a look at that "uncharacteristically shabby post" of mine:

Re: "The mushroom cloud"

An evaluation had to be made as to whether or not, Iraq was engaged in reactivating it's nuclear programme. If memory serves me correctly the evaluation came out with the view that left in place, Saddam's Iraq could complete that work in 5 - 10 years if they attempted to acquire nuclear weapons entirely through "home grown" efforts. That timescale could be shortened in on considerably (2 years) if they took the option of going for an "imported" route to the same objective. Left in place, whether you are talking about 2, 5 or 10 years, that still constitutes a threat that required action to address it, given the track record of Saddam Hussein.

Re: Saddam Hussein's Iraq and terrorist links

I do not think that there can be any doubt that Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, did have links with terrorist groups. Again from memory, the future threat to the US, as presented by the current administration, and their security advisors, at the time, was perceived as coming from A TERRORIST GROUP (not specified) being supplied with WMD by Iraq. The semantics with regard to "links", "contacts" and "ties" is immaterial, they serve as possible indicators and cannot be ignored. It is not only adversity that makes strange bed-fellows, opportunity can often create some highly improbable collaborative ventures.

So when Peter comes out with:
"Teribus knows that Cheney never alleged direct Al Qaaeda involvement in 911, but equally he knows that Cheney's constant hints about an Al Qaeda-Iraq axis were calculated to sow confusion in the minds of millions of Americans."

I am somewhat mystified. That Al-Qaeda were responsible for the attacks of 9/11 is undeniable. So, I'm sorry Peter, it is my firm belief that Dick Cheney and the entire US administration did allege direct Al-Qaeda involvement because that is what Al-Qaeda told them. With regard to Cheney's "hints", if newspaper/radio/television reporters actually reported on what people say in context there would be a damn sight less confusion surrounding the issue. Journalists/Reporters normally have their story written before they go to the news conference/interview, they are responsible for the spin because they have to make what is said fit their picture (Gilligan - classic example). So, in the wake of 9/11, if you are attempting to provide an example of a hostile government linking up with an international terrorist group - who would you couple together, purely by way of an example. That is what was done, if you doubt that go back over the recorded interviews and press conferences.

Re: The current US administration not doing anything to counteract belief that Iraq had any involvement in 9/11.

The current US administration have come out with clear statements to the effect that it was their belief that there was no involvement in the 9/11 attacks on the part of Iraq, or any other foreign government. Perfectly clear Peter, crystal, now subsequent to those statements being made, what did the media report whenever anyone else trotted out the "myth" that the US believed that there was a connection - absolutely nothing, because that was their "myth", they created it and perpetuated it. What happened to their obligation to report factually and impartially? They both didssappeared out of the window because they wanted to grab air time and sell copy.

Clinton did put regime change on the agenda for Iraq, that is a matter of record Peter, pure and simple. As for your question:

"does this make regime change a legitimate objective for unilateral action in Teribus's book?"

If, having just suffered a series of attacks, you believe, or have been given reason to believe (Russian warning), that further attacks are being planned, this time with the support of a foreign government, then yes, it is your governments duty to take steps to defend you from those attacks. Now let's see how they attempted to do that - Did they just launch into it - No they did not, neither in the case of Afghanistan, or in Iraq.

Bobert - 19 Jun 04 - 10:11 PM

"Let me see if I have this right, Dougie. The 9/11 Comission says that AlQuida had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush and Cheney say they did"

No Bobert you do not have this right - The 9/11 Commission HAVE NEVER SAID that Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with 9/11 - It would be bloody strange if they did, as Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for it - they'd been planning the attacks since 1996 according to the evidence heard. So on the fact of Al-Qaeda involvement in the 9/11 attacks the Commission and the current US administration are in perfect accord.

Now Bobert if you meant to say that the 9/11 Commission had stated that Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attacks, then you are perfectly correct - Colin Powell, on behalf of the current US administration, came out with that same clear statement within days of those attacks taking place. So once again the 9/11 Commission and the current US administration are in perfect accord.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 21 Jun 04 - 07:22 AM

Sorry Teribus - a slip of the pen. Where I said "Teribus knows that Cheney never alleged direct Al Qaeda involvement in 911...." I meant to say "Iraq" instead of "Al Qaeda." I realise it makes a significant difference! Anyway, I stand by what I meant to say.... (in its context, that is; not as quoted in isolation here).

I think in replying to me, you've rather lost track of what you said in your earlier post.

For instance, you quoted Bobert as saying: "First we invade Iraq because it was going to drop a nuclear warhead on us," and make this response: With Bobert, attention to detail and fact are not strong suits. The statement made by him above is not correct.

Bobert then justified his statement by recalling Condi's reference to a mushroom cloud. In my view you haven't dealt with that - ie you haven't explained why his statement had been "not correct."

Your first post suggested to me that you were subjectively clinging to very small points. Thus Bobert's statement that "we invade Iraq .... because they have WMDs" is in your book only "almost correct" - the weakness in his argument apparently being that the information about WMD came from the UN. Yet where the WMD spectre came from has no bearing on whether Bobert was right or wrong. (Incidentally, Colin Powell's presentation to the UN included intelligence that did NOT come from UN reports.)

Sometimes, Teribus, your posts are well informed and objective and though I would often dispute the analysis I appreciate their factual content. I didn't think your first post in this thread was in that category, hence I called it uncharacterisic.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Jun 04 - 08:12 AM

Peter,

I do not believe that I have lost track of what I said in my earlier post.

On the "mushroom cloud" thing, this is what WAS said:

"IF THE IRAQI REGIME IS ABLE to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly-enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, IT COULD HAVE a nuclear weapon in less than a year. ... Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us."

In the above a specific potential threat is outlined, the "IF" and "COULD" clearly define it as a potential threat. GWB then went on to say:

"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

That is a general statement of principle of how a responsible government should react.

The scenario being described above does not amount to what Bobert contends below:

"First we invade Iraq BECAUSE IT WAS going to drop a nuclear warhead on us," - In short the statement made by Bobert above is incorrect, at NO TIME AT ALL did anyone in the current US administration say that Iraq WAS going to drop a nuclear warhead on the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jun 04 - 10:05 AM

In the above a specific potential threat is outlined, the "IF" and "COULD" clearly define it as a potential threat. GWB then went on to say:

"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

That is a general statement of principle of how a responsible government should react.

"IF" and "COULD" are most definitely not considered grounds for attacking another country. It is especially not the behavior of a responsible government to use "IF" and "COULD" as its reasons for attacking another country.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Jun 04 - 10:59 AM

Who said they were, "considered grounds for attacking another country", CarolC? Certainly not the Government of the United States of America - their chosen means of reacting was to go to the UN, but in so doing they made it clear that they would not accept the same run around from Saddam Hussein that the UN had put up with for the previous 12 years. The outcome was UNSC Resolution 1441, that gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to co-operate and comply with ALL outstanding UNSC Resolutions relating to Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jun 04 - 02:24 PM

UNSC Resolution 1441 does not authorize any nation or nations to attack Iraq on the basis of that resolution or any other resolutions. It says:

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

Then it talks about the decisions it has made with regard to inspections and what Iraq needs to do to be in compliance with the resolution, and it:

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates...

...and then it says that it:

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

And that's that. The US violated the terms of this resolution by not keeping it's commitment to honor the territorial integrity of Iraq, and by interfering in the inspection process by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, by attacking Iraq and thus ending the ability of the inspectors to continue to do their job.

SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS - 2002

Click on:

"Security Council resolution 1441 (2002) The situation between Iraq and Kuwait"

It's not possible to uphold a UN resolution by violating a UN resolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jun 04 - 04:13 PM

Thank you, T-Bird, fir interpreting my slip of 9/11 not linked to AlQuida... It was just that... Of course I meant Iraq...

Now, back to the "mushroom cloud" comment made by Condi Rice. During that week of hyper selling of the coming invasion of Iraq the "mushroom cloud" lines dribbled from the mouths of many in the Bush administration. The intent was to make the masses think they were in danger, imminent or otherwise... The words were darefully cobbled together to give that very distinct impression. The CIA told them there was no credible evidence. Scott Ritter was trying to tell anyone who would listen. Tehn came the "aluminum tubes" story which was supposed to support the first story. Then the story about how Saddam was trying to secure high grade uranium from Africa... All the while the CIA was saying, "No, no, no..." But the stories kept coming and the PR bandwagen for war was rolling so fasr and hard that these stories weren't seriously challenged. Now we know that all these stories were just that: stories.

Is this not yet concedable or do we need to hash this bit of recent history over and over... And lets not go down that "define is" road on this one. All the twisting in the world doesn't change that what I have presented here is fairly accurate.

Now, T-Bird, you are correct in that the *full* 9/11 Comission has not made its final report but there have been statements by members of both parties that Iraq was not involved in 9/11. Again, you can argue semantics if that what you want to do but the statements havre been made. And I would guess that since this may be the most damaging aspe3ct of its final report that the Repubs would just as soon have that out now rather than later since it does not bode well for Bush and Cheney's credibility and allows time for the American people to get beyond that prior to the convention and final report by the Comission.

So, I think it fair to take those two reasons for the invasion off the table unless folks want to keep them alive for some sentimental reasons or for academic wrangling exercises...

So that leaves the WMD out of the Big Three.

Well, with every passing day it looks as if that story might have been hatched up by the same PR folks as the "mushroom cloud" and the "Iraq involvement in 9/11" stories.

So we're really down to the Big Three prewar stories and one big post war ("Saddam was a bad man") story.

Well, yeah, Saddam was a bad man. Given that the Big Three were just PR spins to sell Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle's 1992 plan to attack and occupy Iraq, I guess the "Saddam is a bad man" is all we are left with in the way of excusing killing upwards of 20,000 Iraq'a, injuring countless more, killing almost 800 Americans and seriously injuring upwards of 20,000, many who will be disabled fir life. Yup, down to "Saddam was a bad man"... That's a miserable excuse for foriegn policy. If taht's what this was all about, why not just kill Saddam? Oh, the US doesn't do that? Is that your final answer?

And, yo, PeterK... Whereas you find lots of pleasue in making statements that I don't pay attention to facts, I challenge you to respond specificlly to anything in this post that you *feel* are not factual.

You and yer bud, the T-Bird, think you can just out academic folks over word twisting but I'd bet that most of the folks here would agree that what I have presented is pretty much the way things went down. After all, we were all here arguing over it while it was happening. It isn't like we're trying to pinpoint the exaxct date that the last dinosaur died. I mean, we were all witnesses to these events, dang it... Maybe you weren't watching and listening but most of us here in the Catbox sure as heck were...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 21 Jun 04 - 06:50 PM

You must have misread something there, Bobert, or else my pen slipped again. I haven't meant to take issue with you on anything in this thread. Tell me what you're referring to and I'll explain it or correct it as appropriate.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: GUEST,Gareth (temp sans Cookie)
Date: 21 Jun 04 - 07:37 PM

Stop squiming Fionn, and answer the reasonable question. If you can !

Or shall we see your usual insults and plain name calling when you are challenged.

BTW I still await your details as to your so called journalism, and youi have my E-Mail Address, so there is no excuse there.

Gareth