Resign... or Change, Mr. President

[tieguy]

here is some history on Hussien and Iraq that some people seem to have forgotten:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein's_Iraq

and one particular quote of interest

"Al-Anfal Campaign: In 1988, the Hussein regime began a campaign of extermination against the Kurdish people living in Northern Iraq. This is known as the Anfal campaign. The campaign was mostly directed at *****e kurds (Faili Kurds) who sided with Iranians during the Iraq-Iran War. The attacks resulted in the death of at least 50,000 (some reports estimate as many as 100,000 people), many of them women and children. A team of Human Rights Watch investigators determined, after analyzing eighteen tons of captured Iraqi documents, testing soil samples and carrying out interviews with more than 350 witnesses, that the attacks on the Kurdish people were characterized by gross violations of human rights, including mass executions and disappearances of many tens of thousands of noncombatants, widespread use of chemical weapons including Sarin, mustard gas and nerve agents that killed thousands, the arbitrary imprisoning of tens of thousands of women, children, and elderly people for months in conditions of extreme deprivation, forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of villagers after the demolition of their homes, and the wholesale destruction of nearly two thousand villages along with their schools, mosques, farms, and power stations.[2][3]"


Again a reason people were willing to believe the intelligence was because Hussien had physically demonstrated the desire to acquire and use those weapons.

 

[diesel96]

Come on Tie and friends, Bush admits there were no WMD's, just the unrealistic charge they had "the capicity", then flipped-flopped the excuse as human suffering and advancing freedom....Hmm, still waiting for anybody on the Right to mention strategic oil logistics, Chaney's ties with Haliburton, and Jr's revenge for the threats of Sr's CIA days...

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I square it, because—imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would—who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East.
​

Now, look, I didn’t—part of the reason we went into Iraq was—the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction. But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my question—my answer to your question is, is that—imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.
​

You know, I’ve heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived, and then, you know, kind of that we’re going to stir up the hornet’s nest theory. It just—just doesn’t hold water, as far as I’m concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.
​

REPORTER: What did Iraq have to do with that?
​

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?
​

REPORTER: The attack on the World Trade Center?
​

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Nothing, except for it’s part of—and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a—Iraq—the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.
​

 

[av8torntn]

Come on Tie and friends, Bush admits there were no WMD's,

I just showed you that there were WMD's in Iraq. Why ignore that? They were not some inert training rounds. They were real. It's bad enough you guys try anything to change the subject of this thread to try and blame Bush but this is ridiculous. You claim Bush lied but you give everyone on your side a pass.

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

 

[wkmac]

International sources for technology and chemical precursors
The know-how and material for developing chemical weapons were obtained by Saddam's regime from foreign firms.[22] The largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and West Germany (1,027 tons). One Indian company, Exomet Plastics (now part of EPC Industrie Ltd.) sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. The Kim Al-Khaleej firm, located in Singapore and affiliated to United Arab Emirates, supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX, sarin, and mustard gas precursors and production equipment to Iraq.[23]
The provision of chemical precursors from United States companies to Iraq was enabled by a Ronald Reagan administration policy that removed Iraq from the State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. Leaked portions of Iraq's "Full, Final and Complete" disclosure of the sources for its weapons programs shows that thiodiglycol, a substance needed to manufacture mustard gas, was among the chemical precursors provided to Iraq from US companies such as Alcolac International and Phillips. Both companies have since undergone reorganization and Phillips, once a subsidiary of Phillips Petroleum is now part of ConocoPhillips, an American oil and discount fossil fuel company, while Alcolac International has since dissolved and reformed as Alcolac Inc.[24] Alcolac was named as a defendant in the Aziz v. Iraq case presently pending in the United States District Court (Case No. 1:09-cv-00869-MJG).

source


United States Support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War

Some may forget while so many others ignore what's right in front of their face!

 

[diesel96]

I just showed you that there were WMD's in Iraq. Why ignore that? They were not some inert training rounds. They were real. It's bad enough you guys try anything to change the subject of this thread to try and blame Bush but this is ridiculous. You claim Bush lied but you give everyone on your side a pass.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Many of the quotes are correct reproductions of statements....However, some of the quotes are truncated , and context is provided for none of them....

Face it, the Bush Admin was determined to go to war in the middle east, no matter what. Richard Clarke and Clinton warned them thoroughly about a 9/11 style of attack, and there were signs it was immanent, and they did nothing.
Then the forged docs from Niger, plus Valeria Plame incident.
I’ve had Republican friends go on and on and on and on about how much MORE a problem it was that Clinton got oral, and then cry about NO ONE knew that the Niger docs and CIA intel were forged “at the time,” and that the GW Admin was acting on the “best intel” and that it was just as “likely” the WMD EXIST and have been moved to Syria, and yadda yadda puke barf poop.
They still cling to this stupid belief. So you have enough of the population who is willing to drink the Kool Aid and say that what the GW Admin did was “right” to this day, and that Clinton deserved impeachement for his oral. Well, no use debating a significant portion of the population whose utterly willing to go to their deaths clinging to this belief system. Whaddaya gonna do? And frankly, producing tons of documentation and even getting eye witnesses with video tapes proving the falsity of the documents will most likely do nothing to change these people’s minds.

 

[klein]

Even if they had those wmd's. Who were they then threatining ? Couldn't have been Israel, they didn't join the war against them.
Still blows my mind why the Bush Administration had to take a short cut, even though the UN was heavily involved at the time.

Why did he need to act so quickly ? Why not wait, until atleast Nato countries agreed with him ?
That's a mistake, I bet, Obama would never do.
Just more wasted money that added to your overwelming public debt. And Republicans proud of that ????

 

[av8torntn]

[
and context is provided for none of them....

Face it, the Bush Admin was determined to go to war in the middle east, no matter what. Richard Clarke and Clinton warned them thoroughly about a 9/11 style of attack, and there were signs it was immanent, and they did nothing.
.

Exactly like your Bush quotes?

Actually no they they were not determined to go to war untill we were attacked. The Bush agenda was to grow the Federal government domestically. They got sidetracked by the attacks on this nation.


Yes Clinton warned us of Iraq and also other countries in the middle east yet he did nothing but sit on the sidelines to allow the problem to grow.

[video=youtube;Q2iOVqYBqME]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2iOVqYBqME[/video]

 

[tieguy]

source


United States Support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War

Some may forget while so many others ignore what's right in front of their face!

kind of like discussing the paint colors available on the model T. Aint many people buying them anymore.

 

[tieguy]

Exactly like your Bush quotes?

Actually no they they were not determined to go to war untill we were attacked. The Bush agenda was to grow the Federal government domestically. They got sidetracked by the attacks on this nation.


Yes Clinton warned us of Iraq and also other countries in the middle east yet he did nothing but sit on the sidelines to allow the problem to grow.

[video=youtube;Q2iOVqYBqME]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2iOVqYBqME[/video]

wkmac where does this one fit into your either / or scenario?

 

[TechGrrl]

you guys keep trying to deliver me ancient history.I know the history of BP. If we could manage our foriegn policy in hindsight then the world would be a better place. My point sitll stands that much of what was done back then was justified and supported by the mindset not only of our leadership but americans as a whole. the 80's Iraq / iran war a classic example. Americans despised iran back then and were rooting for an iraqi victory over them. Americans back then would have heartily supported our support of Hussien and Iraq. Until we develop a time machine we have to learn to judge the 8o's with that mindset to understand what took place back then.

I think the idea of going back and looking at history is to do an after-action analysis of the outcome, and then try to avoid making the same mistakes, over and over and over and over again. History tells us that most people are patriots of their country, and, by and large, trust their government to tell them the truth. So, when their government tells them that there is intelligence showing a WMD threat, the people will support their government.

Of course, once it is shown that their government wildly overstated the threat to accomplish a particular political end that had nothing whatsoever to do with the actual situation, those people should pay a tad more attention to the adage, "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice (three times, a hundred times) shame on me."

So, really, examining the history of what our government has done in very similar situations should focus us on being more demanding of serious proof before allowing our government to go spending blood and trillions of dollars for the benefit of oil companies.

 

[av8torntn]

So, really, examining the history of what our government has done in very similar situations should focus us on being more demanding of serious proof before allowing our government to go spending blood and trillions of dollars for the benefit of oil companies.

Are you willing to use this line of reasoning when it comes to insurance companies, banks, and buying votes?

 

[tieguy]

So, really, examining the history of what our government has done in very similar situations should focus us on being more demanding of serious proof before allowing our government to go spending blood and trillions of dollars for the benefit of oil companies.

Were you looking for hussien to kill 100,000 more kurds before you felt there might be a chance he had wmd's?

 

[bbsam]

Were you looking for hussien to kill 100,000 more kurds before you felt there might be a chance he had wmd's?

Holy crap! I thought it was the right in this country always (until 9/11 "changed everything") that warned that we weren't the worlds police force. Honestly I don't think the war mongers cared one bit for the Kurds or "41" wouldn't have left them hanging after gulf war 1.

 

[av8torntn]

Holy crap! I thought it was the right in this country always (until 9/11 "changed everything") that warned that we weren't the worlds police force. Honestly I don't think the war mongers cared one bit for the Kurds or "41" wouldn't have left them hanging after gulf war 1.

The United States spent tremendous resources after the first war to not leave "them hanging".

 

[tieguy]

The United States spent tremendous resources after the first war to not leave "them hanging".

Agreed. the committment was made with the first war yet I've rarely seen anyone complain about our making that committment then. perhaps our conspirathist junkies can cook up another chickens come home to roost argument.

looks like bbsam misunderstood what I said to be a fight over the kurds. its tough trying to dumb things down for a fdx guy. Its why I stopped trying.

 

[bbsam]

Were you looking for hussien to kill 100,000 more kurds before you felt there might be a chance he had wmd's?

It is what you implied, Tie.

 

[diesel96]

Exactly like your Bush quotes?

Actually no they they were not determined to go to war untill we were attacked. The Bush agenda was to grow the Federal government domestically. They got sidetracked by the attacks on this nation.


Yes Clinton warned us of Iraq and also other countries in the middle east yet he did nothing but sit on the sidelines to allow the problem to grow.

[video=youtube;Q2iOVqYBqME]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2iOVqYBqME[/video]

[video=youtube;3L2513JFJsY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L2513JFJsY[/video]

 

[wkmac]

Replicating the Iran Contragate Pattern
​

Remember Ollie North and the Nicaraguan Contras under the Reagan Administration when weapons financed by the drug trade were channeled to "freedom fighters" in Washington's covert war against the Sandinista government. The same pattern was used in the Balkans to arm and equip the Mujahideen fighting in the ranks of the Bosnian Muslim army against the Armed Forces of the Yugoslav Federation.
Throughout the 1990s, the Pakistan Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) was used by the CIA as a go-between -- to channel weapons and Mujahideen mercenaries to the Bosnian Muslim Army in the civil war in Yugoslavia. According to a report of the London based International Media Corporation:

"Reliable sources report that the United States is now [1994] actively participating in the arming and training of the Muslim forces of Bosnia-Herzegovina in direct contravention of the United Nations accords. US agencies have been providing weapons made in ... China (PRC), North Korea (DPRK) and Iran. The sources indicated that ... Iran, with the knowledge and agreement of the US Government, supplied the Bosnian forces with a large number of multiple rocket launchers and a large quantity of ammunition. These included 107mm and 122mm rockets from the PRC, and VBR-230 multiple rocket launchers ... made in Iran. ... It was [also] reported that 400 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (Pasdaran) arrived in Bosnia with a large supply of arms and ammunition. It was alleged that the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had full knowledge of the operation and that the CIA believed that some of the 400 had been detached for future terrorist operations in Western Europe.
During September and October [1994], there has been a stream of "Afghan" Mujahedin ... covertly landed in Ploce, Croatia (South-West of Mostar) from where they have traveled with false papers ... before deploying with the Bosnian Muslim forces in the Kupres, Zenica and Banja Luka areas. These forces have recently [late 1994] experienced a significant degree of military success. They have, according to sources in Sarajevo, been aided by the UNPROFOR Bangladesh battalion, which took over from a French battalion early in September [1994].
The Mujahedin landing at Ploce are reported to have been accompanied by US Special Forces equipped with high-tech communications equipment, ... The sources said that the mission of the US troops was to establish a command, control, communications and intelligence network to coordinate and support Bosnian Muslim offensives -- in concert with Mujahideen and Bosnian Croat forces -- in Kupres, Zenica and Banja Luka. Some offensives have recently been conducted from within the UN-established safe-havens in the Zenica and Banja Luka regions.
(...)
The US Administration has not restricted its involvement to the clandestine contravention of the UN arms embargo on the region ... It [also] committed three high-ranking delegations over the past two years [prior to 1994] in failed attempts to bring the Yugoslav Government into line with US policy. Yugoslavia is the only state in the region to have failed to acquiesce to US pressure.5
​

"From the Horse's Mouth"

Ironically, the US Administration's undercover military-intelligence operations in Bosnia have been fully documented by the Republican Party. A lengthy Congressional report by the Republican Party Committee (RPC) published in 1997, largely confirms the International Media Corporation report quoted above. The RPC Congressional report accuses the Clinton administration of having "helped turn Bosnia into a militant Islamic base" leading to the recruitment through the so-called "Militant Islamic Network," of thousands of Mujahideen from the Muslim world:

Perhaps most threatening to the SFOR mission - and more importantly, to the safety of the American personnel serving in Bosnia - is the unwillingness of the Clinton Administration to come clean with the Congress and with the American people about its complicity in the delivery of weapons from Iran to the Muslim government in Sarajevo. That policy, personally approved by Bill Clinton in April 1994 at the urging of CIA Director-designate (and then-NSC chief) Anthony Lake and the U.S. ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith, has, according to the Los Angeles Times (citing classified intelligence community sources), "played a central role in the dramatic increase in Iranian influence in Bosnia.
(...)
Along with the weapons, Iranian Revolutionary Guards and VEVAK intelligence operatives entered Bosnia in large numbers, along with thousands of mujahedin ("holy warriors") from across the Muslim world. Also engaged in the effort were several other Muslim countries (including Brunei, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Turkey) and a number of radical Muslim organizations. For example, the role of one Sudan-based "humanitarian organization," called the Third World Relief Agency, has been well documented. The Clinton Administration's "hands-on" involvement with the Islamic network's arms pipeline included inspections of missiles from Iran by U.S. government officials... the Third World Relief Agency (TWRA), a Sudan-based, phoney humanitarian organization ... has been a major link in the arms pipeline to Bosnia. ... TWRA is believed to be connected with such fixtures of the Islamic terror network as Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the convicted mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) and Osama Bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi émigré believed to bankroll numerous militant groups. [Washington Post, 9/22/96] 6
​

Osamagate

Clinton did his bidding for the empire as well! And why did the republicans who knew all this, ignore it and instead go after a blue stained dress?

They are both in on the gig!
​

 

[tieguy]

Osamagate[/URL]

Clinton did his bidding for the empire as well! And why did the republicans who knew all this, ignore it and instead go after a blue stained dress?

They are both in on the gig!
​

and deny you the opportunity to post a good conspiracy theory? Perish the thought.

 

[av8torntn]

Everyone here is over looking (why we went to Iraq) one very important fact; Iraq never complied with the cease fire agreement of Desert Storm; to allow the UN inspectors full access. .

Very true. Here is the speech that Bush gave outlining the many reasons he was asking to go to war with Iraq. 2003 State of Union speech. Failure to comply with the cease fire agreement was a primary reason. Failure to provide proof of disclosed WMD's, use of chemical weapons on his own people, and just all around being a bad guy were also reasons given.