Originally Posted by Terminator X

Everything was done to coincide with the weather and the election schedule. It was a big show

I see. How did Bush and Co. arrange to have Clinton keep bombing Iraq all through the 1990's? Was Clinton in on the deal?

And what if Saddam had actually COOPERATED? Wouldn't that have thrown a monkey wrench into the whole conspiracy?

Was Saddam in on the deal?

And how did Bush and Co. arrange to have Al Qaeda representatives meet with Iraqi officials in Baghdad during the 1990's?

As we knew in 1999:

T]wo of bin Laden's senior military commanders, Muhammad Abu-Islam and Abdallah Qassim, visited Baghdad between April 25 and May 1 [1998] for discussions with Iraqi intelligence. The importance of these contacts to Baghdad was shown by their meeting with Qusay Hussein, Saddam's son, who is now responsible for intelligence matters and was personally involved in both the Iraqi contribution to the Somalia operation and later the intelligence cooperation with Iran. Both sides were very satisfied with the results of the negotiations.

Was Bin Laden in on the deal to reelect Bush?

Originally Posted by Ash

And what if Saddam had actually COOPERATED? Wouldn't that have thrown a monkey wrench into the whole conspiracy?

It wasn't a conspiracy per se. It was something they had been waiting to do once they regained office and did it. Since the people that are in power now are essentially a continuation of a narrow leadership that extends back to 1992, (and beyond) they had plenty of time to outline their goals for the post-Clinton years, from the selection of the candidate, to the war on Iraq.

Whatever wool they pulled over the American public's eyes is irrelevant. They could have pointed the WMD gun or the human rights gun, or anything to drum up support for their operation. It is ironic that the WMD gun didn't pan out, but that can be explained away by blaming Clinton or the liberal media.

Bush wants ou to think that every war he commisioned is about freedom and liberty, but hasn't every war America has ever fought been about those things. Even shameless landgrabs like the Mexican War and the Spanish-American War were about "liberty" and "freedom."
So it's really all just propaganda. Bones for us dogs to fight over.

H.C.:

But if the colonists (meaning our ancestors) heard that these things were being said in Parliament, it probably did encourage them. From the POV of a British loyalist, Burke was giving encouragement to the rebels.

Of course he was. That's my point. And we ARE "debating the rightness or wrongness of it." You seem to believe that Gore should not have expressed his opinion as he did. But whether he should have done that or not, is highly dependent on whether we should be in Iraq in the first place. I do not doubt that his words, by indicating a division in the U.S. over the Iraq war, encouraged the insurgents. But so what? That division really does exist. He believes we shouldn't be there. So do I. You disagree. If we ought to bring our troops home, if we should not be pursuing the Bush administration policies in the Middle East, then we should say so, and if that encourages the insurgents, what of it?

At no point have I condemned the expression of dissent. I've objected to the manner of that expression

But by implication, you have condemned the expression of dissent, because there is no manner in which dissent can be expressed which does not arguably give aid and comfort to the "enemy." The only way to avoid doing so is to clam up.

What I said was basic civics and law, it's not a matter of personal opinion. Bush speaks for America

Bush speaks for the Executive branch of the U.S. government. That is not the same as speaking for America.

I would like to note something in passing here. Someone suggested that you are a paid propagandist for the Bush administration. That's nonsense, of course, with respect to yourself. But we should not rule out the possibility that the administration does retain operatives who surf the Net and participate in discussions like these, as a form of disinformation. Nobody who was on this forum before Bush started running for president could realistically be such a person, but among newer posters it is not at all unlikely that one might surface -- or even more than one, in the sense of more than a single identity. I have suspected that for a while now.

Drat...

Scully!

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

I didn't call for, or imply, that the government should be punishing crimes before they are committed. The goal is to prevent the crime, and conspiracy to commit such acts is itself a crime.

What I pointed out was the necessity of finding a way to balance the rights of privacy and expression against the right of the majority to security. That means finding a framework to permit gathering more information than is currently allowed, without creating undue damage to the standing traditions of freedom and speech. The government will be gathering more information than it did before. The question is what is the best way to do that, the least dangerous way...

The least dangerous way, is simply for them to gather more information. Nothing is stopping them. I remain unconvinced that the government does not already have all the tools it needs. If we want them to gather more information, well and good; we need them to do that. Tampering with what is "currently allowed" is to flirt with dictatorship. And it is not necessary. Investigators can get courts to issue warrants for whatever is needed. No violations of civil liberties are necessary, and no changes in the law (except to repeal the unnecessary changes that have already been made because of the Patriot Act).

Originally Posted by Ash

Originally Posted by David '47 Redux

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

... It was up to Hussein to prove his innocence, not America to prove his guilt.

HC, you really need to take a course in logic. :?

• You can't prove a negative!

I've made this point before, but you seem to ignore it. It's NOT an opinion.

It is, however, a falsehood.

If a person is shot at 8:30 PM on a certain Tuesday, and you are a suspect, and you prove to law enforcement that you were, in fact, 500 miles away from the scene of the crime when it happened, you will have proven that you didn't shoot the victim.

You will have proven a negative.

No, you've demonstrated a truth ... a postive. You were POSITIVELY in the other location. Had you been unable to demonstrate that, you would have been left trying to prove you were NOT at the scene of the crime ... a negative.

David, you are misusing language, and doing it in big red letters so everyone can see your foolishness. Of course you can prove a negative. Logicians do it all of the time.

Given a
Given a indicates ~b

Therefore ~b

Sometimes, people say in a sloppy way "you can't prove a negative" in the context of whether the soul exists or something like that, but WMD are not some whispy metaphysical thing, and sloppy language is not logic no matter how big and red you write it.

In criminal investigations, it is often noted that it is USUALLY MORE DIFFICULT to prove a negative, but that doesn't mean that it is logically IMPOSSIBLE to prove a negative.

Since you've decided to take this on as a project, show me how you prove the non-existence of WMDs. I'll give you a head start, takng this exactly where I left-off with HC.

I, Saddam Hussein, agree to excavate the entire country of Iraq to a depth of twenty feet - EVERYTHING! You, as the UN mission for doing the impossible, aaagree to do exactly that. So what are the results?

By showning the lack of WMDs within the boundaries of Iraq to a depth of twenty feet you've shown POSITIVELY that they do not exist there. If, however, they are located at a depth of thirty feet, you miss them. Since they exist, the "proof" is inadequate by definition. Now add to that the obvious - it exceeds any regime that is conceivable. Q.E.D.

In the context we are dealing with, had Hussein used the approach of South Africa and Kazahkstan to PROVE that their WMD had been destroyed, that is, to involve international agencies in the very destruction of said weapons, to COOPERATE, then the sanctions would have been lifted by the late 1990's and Hussein would still be in power.

This is very nice and gives a warm fuzzy feeling. If you have faith in the process, you can convince yourself that the actions you observe - perhaps actively engage-in - give some sense of assurance. Just don't call it proof.

In this context, Hussein's regime had agreed to cease-fire terms whose language placed the onus on Iraq to demonstrably destroy their WMD. So, this whole "you can't prove a negative" argument of yours is not only false, it's irrelevant, that is, if you stick to the purely legalistic rather than jump freely between legalistic and moral arguments (as many do).

If they had simply lost track of the WMD they listed as being in possesion of in 1991, or couldn't remember where they were, or had lost the paperwork, they should have admitted it, and allowed inspectors to sift the sands of Iraq for as long as they pleased in return for lifting the sanctions. This would have been the course of a rational ruler with his people's interests in mind.

Instead, in the words of David Kay:

When it comes to the U.N. weapons inspection in Iraq, looking for a smoking gun is a fool's mission. That was true 11 years ago when I led the inspections there. It is no less true today -- even after the seemingly important discovery on Thursday of a dozen empty short-range missile warheads left over from the 1980s.

The only job the inspectors can expect to accomplish is confirming whether Iraq has voluntarily disarmed. That is not a task that need take months more. And last week's cache is irrelevant in answering that question, regardless of the U.N.'s final determination. That's because the answer is already clear: Iraq is in breach of U.N. demands that it dismantle its weapons of mass destruction.

Perhaps it is you, David, who could benefit from a course in logic.

I'll go with Kay's comment because, though he certainly has an agenda here, at least he admits that the best that's attainable is, "confirming whether Iraq has voluntarily disarmed". Unfortunately, this has absolutely nothing to do with weapons and everything to do with politics.

Kay is asking for a humble Hussien who, hat in hand, would deliver his weapons to the UN for destruction. This fails on three levels:

1. Comity of Nations: Hussein. along with most of the Arab states, recognizes none. That also extends to the UN.
2. Machismo: Autocrats like Hussein can never show weakness, because to be weak is to be dead. Expecting humility from Hussein is similar to asking a river to flow uphill. It's totally unnatural.
3. The Final Count: At the end of the process, you still only have only your opinion to rely-on, since you can never actually verify that all the weapons were destroyed.

So, we set-up a strawman, and got the results we expected. Hussien is a scumbag, which made it easy, but never doubt that we knew well in advance that what happened was exactly what WOULD happen. We imposed terms that could not be met so that we'ld never have to agree that Hussein had complied. This was shrewd, but GWB doesn't do "shrewd", apparently.

This is why having a President with a few spare gray cells is important. Even though I'm not a big Kerry fan, I'll grant that he does measure-up on that scale.

Originally Posted by Witchiepoo

Originally Posted by Terminator X

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Bush speaks for America as a whole right now, and nobody else.

Boy, how nuts are you?

Hee hee. America needs speech therapy.

I think what the Hopeful -- the Cynic thus being quieted -- is trying to say is that, much like Clinton's era, Bush is merely leading the way most of America wants to be led. Curse the Hopeful if you must, but at least be honest with yourselves. If you all ever found yourselves among "most of America," you would take a fast acting laxative until you pooped every last bit of "America as a whole" out of your system as to feel normal once again.

True? Or false? :wink:

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Witchiepoo

Originally Posted by Terminator X

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Bush speaks for America as a whole right now, and nobody else.

Boy, how nuts are you?

Hee hee. America needs speech therapy.

I think what the Hopeful -- the Cynic thus being quieted -- is trying to say is that, much like Clinton's era, Bush is merely leading the way most of America wants to be led.

Actually, not quite.

What I'm saying is that American foreign policy is set by the President of the United States, with the U.S. Senate in a junior partner role. Thus, whoever is President, by definition, speaks for America, and only that person speaks for America. Anyone else speaking is merely speaking on his or her own behalf.

If people don't like what their President is saying, the time to express that dislike is every second and fourth November.

Some people like to claim "Bush isn't my President." Some right-wingers uttered the same foolishness in Clinton's term, but in either case it's nonsense. Unless you are prepared to take up arms to overthrow the Federal authority, then such utterances are empty noise, and Bush is your President, at least until January 2005.

Originally Posted by Witchiepoo

Originally Posted by Terminator X

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Bush speaks for America as a whole right now, and nobody else.

Boy, how nuts are you?

Hee hee.

America needs speech therapy.

\

In all seriousness, that is a weakness Bush has in dealing with diplomacy, especially in Europe, where the governing elites tend to be technocrats from a specific set of backgrounds (Oxbridge in the UK, similar institutions in France and Germany, etc).

OTOH, I've come to suspect his weird speech pattern might actually be a political asset domestically.

Originally Posted by David '47 Redux

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

... It was up to Hussein to prove his innocence, not America to prove his guilt.

HC, you really need to take a course in logic. :?

• You can't prove a negative!

I've made this point before, but you seem to ignore it. It's NOT an opinion.

David, I won our debates on this issue before. I've already told you precisely what he had to do to prove his innoence. It was a perfectly practical, though very unpleasant (for him) method. It was the only way he could stop what was coming.

Originally Posted by ... then, HC'68

... He had a straightfoward (if personally humliating) way to stop the effort. But he did not, and I suspect could not, since there was a good chance they'd have found the WMDs he was hiding. He even ended up interfering with Blix's farcical inspections. He was either hiding something, or he went out of his way to produce the impression he was hiding something. Either way, the result is the same.

You've also written this before, but it's patently false.

And I'll post it again if you post your silly nonsense about Hussein being unable to prove his innocence, if he was. It's straightforward truth.

We've had unfettered access for a long time now and have plenty of troops to poke around. We've found nothing, yet you still believe there is something there.

No, I think something may be there, and I'm fairly sure something was there until recently. But it doesn't matter, even if it turns out that there never was anything.

The burden of proof was on Hussein.

Hussein went out of his way to make us think he had the WMDs, if he didn't. Frankly, common sense says he had them, and the most likely scenario is that they've either been removed from Iraq, or remain hidden. We've yet to even search the majority of the country, despite your specious claim to the contrary.

Frankly, I don't expect the WMDs to be found now. I think we gave them 6 months to prepare, and they used it to move them. But it'll be a long time before we know for sure either way.

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Do you care how many people die for it, who need not have died? If you don't care, then we really have reached impasse.

Of course I care. That's why I opposed the Iraq invasion in the first place, because I didn't want to send our servicepeople off to die in what I believed was an unnecessary war.

You believed the war was justified, and apparently you feel the price in American lives and treasure has been worth it. I don't think it has.

That's beside the point of this discussion. Even if the invasion was unjustified, its opponents still are obligated to speak with care while the fighting lasts, since what they say can still help the enemy and harm our own personnel.

Dissent is allowable, but in wartime, the range of expression of it is morally restricted. There's no way around that.

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

If we Americans are to live in a free society, any suggestion from the Powers That Be that we water down our dissent into something more "Politically Correct" should be disregarded.

Kiff, this isn't political! This is a basic truth of warfare, and it's not a matter about which we have the option of it applying or not. It's not a matter of 'if' we face that situation, it's a fact of life. It was true in the World Wars, in Koria, in Vietnam, it's true now, and it'll apply in the future too. There is no way to make this go away.

Who are they to determine what is "acceptable" dissent and what is too "reckless?"

Simple common sense should be sufficient. Certainly Gore knows better than what he's doing.

Where is that line? We're not talking Hanoi Jane here by any means -- we'd be seeing Al Gore visiting bin Laden in his Pakistani hideout if we're implying something even close to that.

No, but it's very similar. Rest assured, Kiff, the enemy does like what Gore is saying. It shows that their basic strategy is well on its way to working.

Originally Posted by Terminator X

Originally Posted by Ash

And what if Saddam had actually COOPERATED? Wouldn't that have thrown a monkey wrench into the whole conspiracy?

It wasn't a conspiracy per se. It was something they had been waiting to do once they regained office and did it. Since the people that are in power now are essentially a continuation of a narrow leadership that extends back to 1992, (and beyond) they had plenty of time to outline their goals for the post-Clinton years, from the selection of the candidate, to the war on Iraq.

You didn't answer the question.

The answer is simple: IF Hussein was innocent (or even nearly so) and allowed genuine inspections, there would have been no invasion. What Bush intended or wanted would not have made any difference, it would have been politically impossible.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

H.C.:

At no point have I condemned the expression of dissent. I've objected to the manner of that expression

But by implication, you have condemned the expression of dissent, because there is no manner in which dissent can be expressed which does not arguably give aid and comfort to the "enemy."

No, but there is a level of common sense self-restraint that would make the matter workable. Gore chose to disregard that and indulge in a full-bore Moveon.org style attack. He knew what he was doing, too.

Gore's problem was that he didn't really have a message, per se, not on his own. This is something I recognize because I dissected his long (but carefully written) speech. What he had was the basic list of Moveon talking points, dressed up with a higher level of subtlety. It was nothing more or less than an attack ad.

When you strip that part out, there's nothing left.

I would like to note something in passing here. Someone suggested that you are a paid propagandist for the Bush administration. That's nonsense, of course, with respect to yourself. But we should not rule out the possibility that the administration does retain operatives who surf the Net and participate in discussions like these, as a form of disinformation. Nobody who was on this forum before Bush started running for president could realistically be such a person, but among newer posters it is not at all unlikely that one might surface -- or even more than one, in the sense of more than a single identity. I have suspected that for a while now.

:lol:

We're not that important, Brian.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

I didn't call for, or imply, that the government should be punishing crimes before they are committed. The goal is to prevent the crime, and conspiracy to commit such acts is itself a crime.

What I pointed out was the necessity of finding a way to balance the rights of privacy and expression against the right of the majority to security. That means finding a framework to permit gathering more information than is currently allowed, without creating undue damage to the standing traditions of freedom and speech. The government will be gathering more information than it did before. The question is what is the best way to do that, the least dangerous way...

The least dangerous way, is simply for them to gather more information. Nothing is stopping them.

On the contrary. There are several barriers in the way, and many of them are there for very good reasons. Others are there by accident, or for reasons that don't matter any more.

The Patriot Act does several different things. Some of them are very bad, some are quite reasonable. But there is little rational analysis over it, instead the usual reactions are hysterical on all sides.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

I think what the Hopeful -- the Cynic thus being quieted -- is trying to say is that, much like Clinton's era, Bush is merely leading the way most of America wants to be led.

What I'm saying is that American foreign policy is set by the President of the United States, with the U.S. Senate in a junior partner role. Thus, whoever is President, by definition, speaks for America, and only that person speaks for America.

The U.S. purse strings are controlled in the House, not the Senate or the Bush White House. If the "people's representatives" cut off those funds the president's ability to continue his "foreign policy" is nil. That is exactly why we left Vietnam the way we did.

The President may set policy, which is an important role, but if the House doesn't yield the money (the Senate can only second the motion) then his policy is DOA. Now if you'd like to argue that our constitutionally "Representative democracy" is bs, like most here do, why that's another matter.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Terminator X

Originally Posted by Ash

And what if Saddam had actually COOPERATED? Wouldn't that have thrown a monkey wrench into the whole conspiracy?

It wasn't a conspiracy per se. It was something they had been waiting to do once they regained office and did it. Since the people that are in power now are essentially a continuation of a narrow leadership that extends back to 1992, (and beyond) they had plenty of time to outline their goals for the post-Clinton years, from the selection of the candidate, to the war on Iraq.

You didn't answer the question.

The answer is simple: IF Hussein was innocent (or even nearly so) and allowed genuine inspections, there would have been no invasion. What Bush intended or wanted would not have made any difference, it would have been politically impossible.

The 'we'll try the UN one last time' charade was a nice pantomme for old times sake, but they would have found a loophole anyway. They were determined to do it, and did so, as you and I have both witnessed. I do not trust in the restraint nor sanity of George Walker Bush, nor his keepers.
I mean, if only Bush had accepted Saddam's proposal for a debate
It was laughable, but just s laughable that Bush and his keepers would have taken "no" for an answer. I mean they knew where the WMDs were, right?
They got what they wanted from day one. Now if they have to pay for it politically, which it appears they very well might, then it seems their action has had the same effect it would have had if they had skipped the UN one act altogether.

Originally Posted by Terminator X

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Terminator X

Originally Posted by Ash

And what if Saddam had actually COOPERATED? Wouldn't that have thrown a monkey wrench into the whole conspiracy?

It wasn't a conspiracy per se. It was something they had been waiting to do once they regained office and did it. Since the people that are in power now are essentially a continuation of a narrow leadership that extends back to 1992, (and beyond) they had plenty of time to outline their goals for the post-Clinton years, from the selection of the candidate, to the war on Iraq.

You didn't answer the question.

The answer is simple: IF Hussein was innocent (or even nearly so) and allowed genuine inspections, there would have been no invasion. What Bush intended or wanted would not have made any difference, it would have been politically impossible.

The 'we'll try the UN one last time' charade was a nice pantomme for old times sake, but they would have found a loophole anyway. They were determined to do it, and did so, as you and I have both witnessed. I do not trust in the restraint nor sanity of George Walker Bush, nor his keepers.

You still haven't answered the question.

By allowing inspections, I'm not talking about the UN. No sane President is going to stake American security on anything handled by the UN. But if he had offered this, the invasion would have been stopped, if he was innocent:

"I will permit American and British inspectors, under American leadership, unrestricted access to all parts of Iraq, contact with anyone they wish to speak with in or out of Iraq, and I will permit armed American and British escort of the inspectors. American overflights will not be interfered with, and no officers of my regime will accompany the inspectors."

If he had offered that, and done it, Bush would not have invaded, because he could not have invaded. Unless, of course, the inspectors discovered WMDs after all.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

I think what the Hopeful -- the Cynic thus being quieted -- is trying to say is that, much like Clinton's era, Bush is merely leading the way most of America wants to be led.

What I'm saying is that American foreign policy is set by the President of the United States, with the U.S. Senate in a junior partner role. Thus, whoever is President, by definition, speaks for America, and only that person speaks for America.

The U.S. purse strings are controlled in the House, not the Senate or the Bush White House. If the "people's representatives" cut off those funds the president's ability to continue his "foreign policy" is nil. That is exactly why we left Vietnam the way we did.

The President may set policy, which is an important role, but if the House doesn't yield the money (the Senate can only second the motion) then his policy is DOA. Now if you'd like to argue that our constitutionally "Representative democracy" is bs, like most here do, why that's another matter.

Good point. Precisely what the Founders intended, too.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

No, but there is a level of common sense self-restraint that would make the matter workable.

I don't agree. Any dissent which has any reasonable chance to end the war will for that reason meet with your disapproval.

What he had was the basic list of Moveon talking points, dressed up with a higher level of subtlety. It was nothing more or less than an attack ad.

When you strip that part out, there's nothing left.

Well, why not? When we are faced with an administration this abominably bad, attack is exactly the right approach.

We're not that important, Brian.

I imagine that the poster who does the deed here also does it elsewhere under other names. Think of it as a roving Internet discussion disinformation agent. He or she may even do other jobs not related to the Internet. We, specifically, may not be that important but the Internet, as a whole, certainly is.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Terminator X

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Terminator X

Originally Posted by Ash

And what if Saddam had actually COOPERATED? Wouldn't that have thrown a monkey wrench into the whole conspiracy?

It wasn't a conspiracy per se. It was something they had been waiting to do once they regained office and did it. Since the people that are in power now are essentially a continuation of a narrow leadership that extends back to 1992, (and beyond) they had plenty of time to outline their goals for the post-Clinton years, from the selection of the candidate, to the war on Iraq.

You didn't answer the question.

The answer is simple: IF Hussein was innocent (or even nearly so) and allowed genuine inspections, there would have been no invasion. What Bush intended or wanted would not have made any difference, it would have been politically impossible.

The 'we'll try the UN one last time' charade was a nice pantomme for old times sake, but they would have found a loophole anyway. They were determined to do it, and did so, as you and I have both witnessed. I do not trust in the restraint nor sanity of George Walker Bush, nor his keepers.

You still haven't answered the question.

By allowing inspections, I'm not talking about the UN. No sane President is going to stake American security on anything handled by the UN. But if he had offered this, the invasion would have been stopped, if he was innocent:

"I will permit American and British inspectors, under American leadership, unrestricted access to all parts of Iraq, contact with anyone they wish to speak with in or out of Iraq, and I will permit armed American and British escort of the inspectors. American overflights will not be interfered with, and no officers of my regime will accompany the inspectors."

If he had offered that, and done it, Bush would not have invaded, because he could not have invaded. Unless, of course, the inspectors discovered WMDs after all.

Saddam wouldn't have cooperated, and didn't, and I have a feeling they knew he wouldn't. It was a big set up, and it worked. And, as you might have missed, I don't regard George W. Bush to be a sane president, and I don't exactly regard you as sane either, for supporting him.

Here's a little time line for you...

1) Amongst the Bush Administration in exile (1993-2001) were many hawks who wanted to "finish the job" with Saddam Hussein

2)When the Bush Administration came back into power in 2001 these hawks were given high ranking roles in that government. Dick Cheney became Vice President. Paul Wolfowitz became undersecretary of defense.

3)According to several reliable sources, the administration was talking about dealing with Iraq seven months before the 9-11 attacks even happened.

4) After 9-11, the administration felt compelled to take out the Taliban. The Taliban regime fell in Afghanistan in (checking memory) November 2001. Osama bin Ladin - the mastermind of the attacks, slipped through US fingers.

5) and continued to evade capture and release video and audio cassettes. In August 2002 Dick Cheney in a highly publicized speech, began laying out the case for war against Saddam Hussein. I was overseas at the time, and the media there already had possible time tables for the US invasion.

6) Bush went before the UN and made hs case against Saddam, based on the evidence of his weapons programs. His speech was completely within the context of possible (imminent?) US action.

7)In October 2002 a bomb rocked a Bali nightclub killing more than 200 people.

8)And so the inspectors went back in. The only things they could find in the end were some leftover missiles from the 80s.

9)In Bush's 2003 state of the union address he said he had learned that Hussein had tried to purchase large quantities of uranium from Africa.

10) In February 2003 the clock was ticking as the large military force that had accumulated in Kuwait had almost reached peak levels.
Many commented that it was now or never before things got too "hot."

11) In March 2003 Bush authorized the invasion.

12) In May 2003 he declared "Mission Accomplished"

13) The months of November 2003 and April 2004 were the bloodiest the US has seen since Viet Nam.
In December 2003, Saddam Hussein was captured. Bush keeps Saddam's pistol in his office, as a "souvenir." He has yet to add Osama's "walking stick" to his collction.
No WMD were ever found.

14) In March 2004, explosions at a train station in Madrid killed more than 200 people.

15) Osama bin ladin is still a recording artist. He released another cassette this year.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

If he had offered that, and done it, Bush would not have invaded, because he could not have invaded. Unless, of course, the inspectors discovered WMDs after all.

Yes he would. Had Saddam offered something like you specify, the Bush administration would have rejected it. The very fact that Saddam had agreed to instrusive inspections would be proof that he had hidden his WMDs. Sending in inspectors at this point would accomplish nothing. Failure to find the WMDs would simply confirm what was already known--that Saddam had hidden weapons. Thus, simply by making the offer, Saddam confirms he has WMDs and the way is cleared for invasion.

Saddam had a history of failing to comply. You can't ever prove that WMDs aren't there, he could always be hiding them and and with his established track record of deception this would always be a real possibility

If Saddam was innocent what he should have done was broker an agreement in which he stepped down in exchange for being immune to subsequent prosecution. The NEW adminstration could then submit to the inspections you describe and get a clean bill of health like South Africa did. Only a new adminstration could make what amounts to a "good faith" effort.

This is why the adminstration insisted on regime change. The only way to stop an invasion would have been Saddam stepping down. He was unwilling to do this and so we had to invade to force him out of power.

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Terminator X, TK, and Brian -- I agree. I've read and seen enough.

No, you haven't, Kiff, not if you agree with what Brian said.

Your initial reaction to Gore's speech was to go along with Sam Johnson and call it "borderline traitorous." Then you took it back, sort of, when you saw TK's reaction to that.

I strongly disagree that political dissent, even during wartime, amounts to anything approaching treason. And I am sick and tired of that tactic being used by Bush supporters -- and the argument that any criticism of him and his policies is "unpatriotic."

I believe that what has been done by this invasion and occupation of a nation that did not attack us goes so much against what America represents that it must be opposed -- and I don't particularly care who stands up and says so.

HC, I think you and I have reached an impasse on this issue, and I don't really see that we have anything more to discuss at this point.

As I recall-in reference to the demagogue Joseph McCarthy and McCarthyism-Edward R. Murrow commented about confusing dissent with disloyality. There is a tremendous difference between saying that such and such a war is a bad idea (which it might well be, in which case the dissenters would be performing a public service), on the one hand, and yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

Tolerance of dissent is a litmus test. Those who accept it genuinely believe in freedom.

Those who give lip service to freedom, yet denounce dissenters, don't. They are gift-wrapped authoritarians. They are hypocrites.

I quite agree that those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither.

There is a saying that "patriotism" is the last refuge of the scoundrel. If somebody wraps himself in the flag don't trust him.