A History Lesson

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I think you give the senate/congress way to much credit. They are briefed just like citizens. They were given flawed evidence.

That's both funny and frightening that you believe this.

Do you concede that there existed people prior to the war that were fully informed as possible, without being mislead in any way by the Bush administration, that had the best interests of the U.S. as their overwhelming guiding criteria, who were in favor of ousting Saddam?

Congress/senate: Have you actually heard some of them. C'mon, they are no different than the rest of us, other than having alot of ambition and/or money.

Yes, they are human. But they are humans who get briefed on confidential materials that the rest of us don't see. Isn't that obvious? They knew much more than the 'average American' and voted for the war.

Your military claim is a bit of chicanery. The military thought that Saddam didn't pose much of a threat - of course - he was ousted in 3 weeks. he was no military threat. Neither was the Taliban. Saddam's military capabilities were not the reason for overthrowing him. The miliray estimated that his rockets plus his older anthrax would only kill about 800 Israelis if launched into tel aviv. That wasn't considered "much of a threat" either. The bombing of the WTC (twice) wasn't much of a military threat either. Saddam's proven track record of supporting terrorism, allowing terrorists safe haven (including terrorists that bombed the WTC in '93) and continuing to (at the very least) convey the appearance of running WMD prrogams, U.N. violations, etc. etc. were the reasons for ousting him.

Sorry, but you asked about being briefed with unbiased material. Congress and the senate weren't.

Ah, the saddam supported terrorism claim. Yet, no link between him and al-queda. NONE. Yet, all the saudis on the planes and we do nothing.

WMDs..c'mon. Inspectors found nothing. they asked for more time. Ritter, etc. said nothing was there.

[Kiwon]

Having the United Nations based in the U.S. brings these awkward moments when the U.S. public has to bend over and grab their ankles as dictator and thug leaders get to come into "enemy territory" and play it up for all its worth.

I don't mind that so much as the abuse of diplomatic immunity.

The U.N. is a non-stop gravy train that allows reps from the most corrupt or backward governments to come and do pretty much whatever they want to do. They are living off someone else's dime and they couldn't care less.

The parking tickets during shopping sprees by African leaders and the drunk driving cases are legendary. I seem to recall that finally Russia in the 1990's allowed one of its guys to be prosecuted after repeated offenses and after he killed an American citizen while driving drunk.

You might remember that earlier this year that U.S. forces arrested some Iranian military folks (Islamic Revolutionary Guards) in northern Iraq. The government claimed that they were diplomats. Funny thing, their diplomatic status was conferred on them 3 days after they were arrested.

Diplomatic immunity is a necessity, but you're right, it certainly can be abused.

[mraynrand]

[quote="Tyrone Bigguns"]
Ah, the saddam supported terrorism claim. Yet, no link between him and al-queda. NONE. Yet, all the saudis on the planes and we do nothing.

I didn't say al Quaeda. Saddam supported terrorism. I was in favor of taking him out after he provided visas for the 1993 WTC terrorists and then had them in his country as honored guests following the bombing. But I guess you don't care about a guy who supports terrorists who only kill 6 and wound 1000. What's your kill cutoff?

Go back an read the two congressional reports on prewar intelligence. They report that the prewar intelligence on nuke WMDs and some other intelligence was flawed (e.g. 'Curveball') , but that the intelligence on bioweapons (specifically anthtrax) and chemical was solid. UNSCOM reports at least 500 pounds of manufactured weapons grade anthrax from 1995, and possibly more from 2000-2002, based on equipment recovered. The 500 pounds was diminished capability, but according to the intelligence reports was capable of killing 800 Israelis by missile delivery. The original estimate was 8,000 to 80,000, but it was downgraded on the assumption that the Anthrax was the 1995 (diminished effectiveness) versus the never stuff that wasn't confirmed manufactured. The NYT published articles just before the 2004 election outlining how the Bush administration failed to secure nuclear weapons manufacturing equipment that had been buried to hide it - their intent was to smear Bush before the election, but by reporting the story they revealed that the equipment did exist. Christopher Hitchens outlines in detail the efforts of Saddam to secure the yellowcake uranium from Niger. The bottom line with you, Tyrone, is that you trust people who have the same POV as you, rather than trying to rationally dissect the issue.

Your position on congressional leaders being misled is laughable. So you would argue then that Ken Pollack could publish a book in 2002 that was basically spot on accurate, but that 'secret information' in a NYT bestseller was somehow being withheld from congress. The bottom line is that you believe that no one was in favor of taking out Saddam, except those that were being misled or fed inaccurate information. That's an absurd proposition.

[mraynrand]

BTW, invoking the Saudis just illustrates your childishness. That's like the kind of argument I heard from grade school kids who argued that we should just stop using oil right now, or that we should leave the middle east immediately. maybe you could go hang out with Ron Paul. But as you probably know, but don't want to admit, there's the reality that if we're not in the middle east, China certainly will be (recall what happened when we gave away the Panama Canal). Since the U.S. only gets 11-18% of our oil from the Mideast, other countries (our allies) would certainly be put at risk if we left. So we have to support nations that at least aren't directly hostile to us, like Saudia Arabia and Pakistan, and then hope that we can improve things through other (diplomatic, economic) methods. If you've been paying attention, the Saudis have been helping with rounding up al quaeda terrorists (they are a threat to Saudia Arabia as well). it's not a perfect world by any stretch, but sorry, you don't get simple, 6th grader pie-in-the-sky solutions like you're hinting towards. "We should have gone after the Saudis" We should, but not in some absurd direct attack alternative to ousting Saddam.

[Harlan Huckleby]

BTW, invoking the Saudis just illustrates your childishness.

There's something funny in this sentence. Can't put my finger on it.

I know! It's been some time since I've seen a child invoke the Saudis.

[mraynrand]

BTW, invoking the Saudis just illustrates your childishness.

There's something funny in this sentence. Can't put my finger on it.

I know! It's been some time since I've seen a child invoke the Saudis.

It happens more often than you'd think.

[Harlan Huckleby]

[Tyrone Bigguns]

[quote="mraynrand"]

Ah, the saddam supported terrorism claim. Yet, no link between him and al-queda. NONE. Yet, all the saudis on the planes and we do nothing.

I didn't say al Quaeda. Saddam supported terrorism. I was in favor of taking him out after he provided visas for the 1993 WTC terrorists and then had them in his country as honored guests following the bombing. But I guess you don't care about a guy who supports terrorists who only kill 6 and wound 1000. What's your kill cutoff?

Go back an read the two congressional reports on prewar intelligence. They report that the prewar intelligence on nuke WMDs and some other intelligence was flawed (e.g. 'Curveball') , but that the intelligence on bioweapons (specifically anthtrax) and chemical was solid. UNSCOM reports at least 500 pounds of manufactured weapons grade anthrax from 1995, and possibly more from 2000-2002, based on equipment recovered. The 500 pounds was diminished capability, but according to the intelligence reports was capable of killing 800 Israelis by missile delivery. The original estimate was 8,000 to 80,000, but it was downgraded on the assumption that the Anthrax was the 1995 (diminished effectiveness) versus the never stuff that wasn't confirmed manufactured. The NYT published articles just before the 2004 election outlining how the Bush administration failed to secure nuclear weapons manufacturing equipment that had been buried to hide it - their intent was to smear Bush before the election, but by reporting the story they revealed that the equipment did exist. Christopher Hitchens outlines in detail the efforts of Saddam to secure the yellowcake uranium from Niger. The bottom line with you, Tyrone, is that you trust people who have the same POV as you, rather than trying to rationally dissect the issue.

Your position on congressional leaders being misled is laughable. So you would argue then that Ken Pollack could publish a book in 2002 that was basically spot on accurate, but that 'secret information' in a NYT bestseller was somehow being withheld from congress. The bottom line is that you believe that no one was in favor of taking out Saddam, except those that were being misled or fed inaccurate information. That's an absurd proposition.

Diminished capacity. exactly. Sure, lets go to war over that. We could have employed much more effective mehods.

NYT: Ok. So, which is it..liberal rag or trusted source?

Yellowcake: Not a chance. Cooked intelligence all the way. Our own CIA discredits that. Try reading Craig Unger's work, then get back to me.

My problem: You make huge assumptions based on very limited knowledge of me. But, that is expected.

Pollack: Please provide me with the number of congress/senate or aides that read the book or were debriefed.

Saddam: No, not my opinion. My opinion is that when you mention tubes, uranium, and "we don't want the smoking gun to be a nuclear bomb" you are certainly whipping people into a frenzy. You and the rest of the neocons had a hardon for him for years and wanted him out regardless of the data. There is no disputing that truth.

Was Saddam a bad guy. Of course. Was he a real threat to our country. Not a chance.

[mraynrand]

[quote="Tyrone Bigguns"]

Ah, the saddam supported terrorism claim. Yet, no link between him and al-queda. NONE. Yet, all the saudis on the planes and we do nothing.

I didn't say al Quaeda. Saddam supported terrorism. I was in favor of taking him out after he provided visas for the 1993 WTC terrorists and then had them in his country as honored guests following the bombing. But I guess you don't care about a guy who supports terrorists who only kill 6 and wound 1000. What's your kill cutoff?

Go back an read the two congressional reports on prewar intelligence. They report that the prewar intelligence on nuke WMDs and some other intelligence was flawed (e.g. 'Curveball') , but that the intelligence on bioweapons (specifically anthtrax) and chemical was solid. UNSCOM reports at least 500 pounds of manufactured weapons grade anthrax from 1995, and possibly more from 2000-2002, based on equipment recovered. The 500 pounds was diminished capability, but according to the intelligence reports was capable of killing 800 Israelis by missile delivery. The original estimate was 8,000 to 80,000, but it was downgraded on the assumption that the Anthrax was the 1995 (diminished effectiveness) versus the never stuff that wasn't confirmed manufactured. The NYT published articles just before the 2004 election outlining how the Bush administration failed to secure nuclear weapons manufacturing equipment that had been buried to hide it - their intent was to smear Bush before the election, but by reporting the story they revealed that the equipment did exist. Christopher Hitchens outlines in detail the efforts of Saddam to secure the yellowcake uranium from Niger. The bottom line with you, Tyrone, is that you trust people who have the same POV as you, rather than trying to rationally dissect the issue.

Your position on congressional leaders being misled is laughable. So you would argue then that Ken Pollack could publish a book in 2002 that was basically spot on accurate, but that 'secret information' in a NYT bestseller was somehow being withheld from congress. The bottom line is that you believe that no one was in favor of taking out Saddam, except those that were being misled or fed inaccurate information. That's an absurd proposition.

Diminished capacity. exactly. Sure, lets go to war over that. We could have employed much more effective mehods.

NYT: Ok. So, which is it..liberal rag or trusted source?

Yellowcake: Not a chance. Cooked intelligence all the way. Our own CIA discredits that. Try reading Craig Unger's work, then get back to me.

My problem: You make huge assumptions based on very limited knowledge of me. But, that is expected.

Pollack: Please provide me with the number of congress/senate or aides that read the book or were debriefed.


Was Saddam a bad guy. Of course. Was he a real threat to our country. Not a chance.

I'll get that list of congressional leaders who read Pollack to you right away (it was such a reasonable request).

I'm not in with the neocons at all (you assume as well). I make the argument that there was sufficient justification for taking Saddam out, even without all the WMD stuff. That doesn't make me a neocon.

Saddam wasn't a military threat, but he could very easily have allowed Zarqawi to have free reign to hatch terrorist plots. Zarqawi fled to Iraq from Afghanistan. The threshold was lowered. The threat was Saddam allowing terrorist to exist indside his country and funding them. Not taking him out could easily have allowed a safe haven to plan another 911 scale plot. Is that a threat to our country or not?

About the NYT - I've said all along that they are slanted, but that they still report the news. Their slant in the news comes from where they place the news (A1 vs. A16 for example) and how often they stay with a particular story. Their editorial staff is left leaning in general. Still it is possible the get a broad view of the news from reading their pages. That's why I read the NYT, Wash TIimes and Post, and the WSJ - and the Plain Dealer.

The one thing you did say that was reasonable is that in dealing with Saddam we could have employed much more effective methods. That's a defensible position, depending of course on what the methods were.

A final question: do you ever consider the possibility that you might be wrong - that the long term result of ousting Saddam will be far better than having left him in power? I know I've considered the reverse - that getting rid of him the way we did could end up making things worse.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

[quote="mraynrand"]

Ah, the saddam supported terrorism claim. Yet, no link between him and al-queda. NONE. Yet, all the saudis on the planes and we do nothing.

I didn't say al Quaeda. Saddam supported terrorism. I was in favor of taking him out after he provided visas for the 1993 WTC terrorists and then had them in his country as honored guests following the bombing. But I guess you don't care about a guy who supports terrorists who only kill 6 and wound 1000. What's your kill cutoff?

Go back an read the two congressional reports on prewar intelligence. They report that the prewar intelligence on nuke WMDs and some other intelligence was flawed (e.g. 'Curveball') , but that the intelligence on bioweapons (specifically anthtrax) and chemical was solid. UNSCOM reports at least 500 pounds of manufactured weapons grade anthrax from 1995, and possibly more from 2000-2002, based on equipment recovered. The 500 pounds was diminished capability, but according to the intelligence reports was capable of killing 800 Israelis by missile delivery. The original estimate was 8,000 to 80,000, but it was downgraded on the assumption that the Anthrax was the 1995 (diminished effectiveness) versus the never stuff that wasn't confirmed manufactured. The NYT published articles just before the 2004 election outlining how the Bush administration failed to secure nuclear weapons manufacturing equipment that had been buried to hide it - their intent was to smear Bush before the election, but by reporting the story they revealed that the equipment did exist. Christopher Hitchens outlines in detail the efforts of Saddam to secure the yellowcake uranium from Niger. The bottom line with you, Tyrone, is that you trust people who have the same POV as you, rather than trying to rationally dissect the issue.

Your position on congressional leaders being misled is laughable. So you would argue then that Ken Pollack could publish a book in 2002 that was basically spot on accurate, but that 'secret information' in a NYT bestseller was somehow being withheld from congress. The bottom line is that you believe that no one was in favor of taking out Saddam, except those that were being misled or fed inaccurate information. That's an absurd proposition.

Diminished capacity. exactly. Sure, lets go to war over that. We could have employed much more effective mehods.

NYT: Ok. So, which is it..liberal rag or trusted source?

Yellowcake: Not a chance. Cooked intelligence all the way. Our own CIA discredits that. Try reading Craig Unger's work, then get back to me.

My problem: You make huge assumptions based on very limited knowledge of me. But, that is expected.

Pollack: Please provide me with the number of congress/senate or aides that read the book or were debriefed.


Was Saddam a bad guy. Of course. Was he a real threat to our country. Not a chance.

I'll get that list of congressional leaders who read Pollack to you right away (it was such a reasonable request).

I'm not in with the neocons at all (you assume as well). I make the argument that there was sufficient justification for taking Saddam out, even without all the WMD stuff. That doesn't make me a neocon.

Saddam wasn't a military threat, but he could very easily have allowed Zarqawi to have free reign to hatch terrorist plots. Zarqawi fled to Iraq from Afghanistan. The threshold was lowered. The threat was Saddam allowing terrorist to exist indside his country and funding them. Not taking him out could easily have allowed a safe haven to plan another 911 scale plot. Is that a threat to our country or not?

About the NYT - I've said all along that they are slanted, but that they still report the news. Their slant in the news comes from where they place the news (A1 vs. A16 for example) and how often they stay with a particular story. Their editorial staff is left leaning in general. Still it is possible the get a broad view of the news from reading their pages. That's why I read the NYT, Wash TIimes and Post, and the WSJ - and the Plain Dealer.

The one thing you did say that was reasonable is that in dealing with Saddam we could have employed much more effective methods. That's a defensible position, depending of course on what the methods were.

A final question: do you ever consider the possibility that you might be wrong - that the long term result of ousting Saddam will be far better than having left him in power? I know I've considered the reverse - that getting rid of him the way we did could end up making things worse.

I've never addressed the long term implications of ousting saddam in this forum.

Clearly if we had committed enough troops, had better leadership, better excution, non-corrupt defense contractors, not employed private no-control militias (blackwater, etc.), not ousted all the sunnis from power, not detroyed the infrastructure, not gone in with insane expectations we could have made things a lot better.

Let's be honest. Things are terrible for most iraqi's. The infrastructure blows, etc.

I'm very much torn on this. Part of me says, "we broke it, we gotta stay to fix it." The other part looks at the mess and says that the iraqi's can't get their act together and prolly never will..unless we break them into 3 countrys (i advocate that..and have for a long time, but you can't seem to get bush to realize this). And, I don't see us ever getting it under control. The cynic part of me looks at the infrastructure we built (heavily fortified embassy,etc.) and thinks we never planned on leaving and this was going to be our strategic base to control the oil...oops..middle east.

Clearly, destabilizing iraq has lead to a stronger Iran. Anyone with a brain saw that ahead of time. and, i know this admin saw it as well. However, since things went horribly wrong..and they won't take any credit for that..that obviously wasn't their plan. It is as plain as the nose on my face that they were planning on moving on Iran in 04ish, but with all the problems and the subsequent change in congress/senate they couldn't make their move.

At this stage of the game i'm having a hard time seeing the benefits of ousting saddam. Iran saber rattling and an increased power. Iraqi's suffering. U.S. still in the mid-east giving the jihadist more ammo that we want to control them/have their oil.

As i've said before, it is going to end badly. The question is do we want to lose the leg above or below the joint.