Was gadhafi really a threat to National Security

[ARogueTrader]

Using your policeman's analogy, isn't this how it works?

The detectives (CIA) do their work and come up with some "evidence" to perform a legal search (search warrant/approval of Congress) and present that evidence to the judge who grants the warrant. The judge grants the warrant, and the police proceed.

If it is later found out that the "evidence" presented to the judge was fabricated....that is a no no. In fact, the evidence is then thrown out of court.

That is the way the system works.

Many of those senators and congressmen who authorized Bush's use of force, did so on the basis of his claims of WMD. Many now feel they were duped and lied to on the "evidence."

No WMD, no evidence, no support for the efforts. The case to attack and conquer Iraq was weak without the emphasis on WMD.

In addition, this was not a simple police matter. Those on the right continue to forget or ignore that in the "police matter" known as Afghanistan we had the full support of all of our allies, and nearly all the world. The "evidence" in that case was never in doubt.

The "evidence" that led us into war, a pre-emptive with Iraq is still missing. We did not have the full support of our allies. Without that "evidence" our case for war couldn't have been made in the first place sufficient to convince anyone but chicken hawks and war mongers.

The right can spin all they want how the end justifies the means, but the precedent shows that Bush will fabricate or juice the "evidence" to support his end.

A police department that fabricates "evidence" and juices the "evidence" is corrupt.

There was reasonable cause, if the "evidence" of WMD were strong, and frankly many said at the time that it wasn't. It become clearer and clearer in my mind that Iraq presented no where near the threat that the neocon's said it did.

That people like you, and the president and the administration dismiss the need for evidence in support of the "end justification" spin is reminiscent of a people who favor justification and rationalization above principle and law.

Quote from TriPack:

There are a lot of conspiracy theories floating around about Bush's motives for the war in Iraq. Of course since the Democrats are out of power they are the ones floating the theories.

But I disagree that Bush went into Iraq with the intent of deceiving the American public about WMD. That is the innuendo of the left, but Bush has shown to be remarkably consistent in his statements about the reasons for going in. The WMD may show up and they may not show up. My view as a conservative is that Bush acted like a policeman - he had probable cause delivered by the CIA. He connected the dots on the available intelligence: Saddam pays money to suicide bombers and other terrorists, Saddam hates the USA, Saddam tired to assasinate a sitting US President, Saddam has WMD, Saddam has successfully weaponized many of the WMD and tested them on Iranians and the Kurds. Therefore there is a high probability that Saddam will at some point enable WMD to be used against the USA either via terrorists or directly.

That was his main premise. A different President might not have reached the conclusion that Bush reached based on the evidence but I won't fault Bush even if the WMD are ever proved to have been destroyed, because the threat of his WMD being used against Americans has been neutralized. Bush took all the evidence in and decided that he had probable cause that Saddam's WMD would be used against Americans. There were lots of other supporting reasons for going into Iraq from a humanitarian standpoint, that bolstered the need to go in. Bush was acting in the interest of the American people to eliminate a threat that could materialize at any time, which could not be defended against, and which could be much worse than 911.

After 911 there was a mandate for this type of action, in particular caused (though unintentionally) by the Mcarthy-ist manner in which the Democrats attempted to lay the blame for 911 on the President by making it seem like he didn't do all he could have done to prevent it. Did the rhetoric of the Democrats unintentionally influence the developing policy of a sitting President towards war?

 

[harrytrader]

If Nixon was capable to do so, I don't see why Bush wouldn't be as capable haha ! Revealed by official National Archives:

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/1203/11nixontapes.html

Nixon installed a secret taping system in the White House. Some of those tapes later showed a White House cover-up in connection with the 1972 break-in at Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate office building. The release of those tapes, which Nixon fought all the way to the Supreme Court, eventually led him to resign in 1974 rather than face almost-certain impeachment and conviction.

Also on the tapes, Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said they wanted to get some sort of peace agreement with the North Vietnamese before Election Day 1972.

"The advantage of trying to settle now, even if you're 10 points ahead (in the polls), is you ensure a hell of a landslide, and you might win the House and increase strength in the Senate," Nixon told Kissinger in September 1972.

"The question is, 'How can we maneuver it so it can look like a settlement by Election Day, but the process is still open?'" Kissinger said. "This could finish the destruction of McGovern."

Kissinger later announced "peace is at hand" in October, but an agreement was not signed until the following January, after another U.S.-led bombing campaign against North Vietnam.

The National Archives has released 10 batches of Nixon recordings totaling 2,109 hours since 1980. In all, there are about 3,700 hours of Nixon White House tapes.

Quote from TriPack:

There are a lot of conspiracy theories floating around about Bush's motives for the war in Iraq. Of course since the Democrats are out of power they are the ones floating the theories.

 

[harrytrader]

Did they foment the murder of millions of people so as to be able to appear as saviors for the peace later ?

http://www.trussel.com/hf/kissingr.htm
speaking of the murder of more than a million Cambodians by the Khmer Rouge, Isaacson writes:
"'There are only two men responsible for the tragedy in Cambodia,' Prince Sihanouk has said. 'Mr. Nixon and Dr. Kissinger. Lon Nol was nothing without them, and the Khmer Rouge was nothing without Lon Nol. They (Nixon and Kissinger) demoralized America, they lost all of Indo-China to the communists, and they created the Khmer Rouge.'"

"It is not simply that Nixon was inadequate to the calling of the job. Many presidents have been inadequate. It is the fact that the strange, dark personality of this man carried no influence with the public. But at least Nixon was elected.
No one elected Henry Kissinger to anything, yet the power that he gathered into his hands exceeded that of the president; indeed, it exceeded that of the Congress. The bitter truth of it is that under the hand of Henry Kissinger, the Constitution became meaningless. "

Quote from harrytrader:

If Nixon was capable to do so, I don't see why Bush wouldn't be as capable haha ! Revealed by official National Archives:

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/1203/11nixontapes.html

Nixon installed a secret taping system in the White House. Some of those tapes later showed a White House cover-up in connection with the 1972 break-in at Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate office building. The release of those tapes, which Nixon fought all the way to the Supreme Court, eventually led him to resign in 1974 rather than face almost-certain impeachment and conviction.

Also on the tapes, Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said they wanted to get some sort of peace agreement with the North Vietnamese before Election Day 1972.

"The advantage of trying to settle now, even if you're 10 points ahead (in the polls), is you ensure a hell of a landslide, and you might win the House and increase strength in the Senate," Nixon told Kissinger in September 1972.

"The question is, 'How can we maneuver it so it can look like a settlement by Election Day, but the process is still open?'" Kissinger said. "This could finish the destruction of McGovern."

Kissinger later announced "peace is at hand" in October, but an agreement was not signed until the following January, after another U.S.-led bombing campaign against North Vietnam.

The National Archives has released 10 batches of Nixon recordings totaling 2,109 hours since 1980. In all, there are about 3,700 hours of Nixon White House tapes.

 

[TriPack]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

Using your policeman's analogy, isn't this how it works?
If it is later found out that the "evidence" presented to the judge was fabricated....that is a no no. In fact, the evidence is then thrown out of court.

Yes but if there is illegal activity going on in the house that was searched, the police still arrest the criminal, just on different charges. There were plenty of other things going on besides the WMD in Iraq, not the least of which was oppression of the people and countless war crimes.

No WMD, no evidence, no support for the efforts. The case to attack and conquer Iraq was weak without the emphasis on WMD.

Just because WMD haven't been found doesn't mean they won't be found. All the major allies' intelligence including France said the same thing: Iraq has WMD. It was easier to find Saddam than it will be to find the WMD, and finding him was a needle in a haystack. Saddam had runners and personal contacts who could give him up. A hole in the ground isn't going to give up the WMD.

In addition, this was not a simple police matter. Those on the right continue to forget or ignore that in the "police matter" known as Afghanistan we had the full support of all of our allies, and nearly all the world. The "evidence" in that case was never in doubt.

The 15 member security council approved of any means necessary. The only question was the timing. Congress did the same thing.

A police department that fabricates "evidence" and juices the "evidence" is corrupt.

This is where you lefties go off the deep end. As you recall, Bush didn't create the evidence, the CIA provided the intelligence, and he used that to make judgements about Iraq. If the evidence was really doctored, then the CIA did the doctoring. If it is a mistake of judgement, then that is an arguable point against Bush.

There was reasonable cause, if the "evidence" of WMD were strong, and frankly many said at the time that it wasn't. It become clearer and clearer in my mind that Iraq presented no where near the threat that the neocon's said it did.

This is the reason we elect a single individual to be President rather than making executive decisions based on a vote. If the executive is out of line, it is the Congress' responsibility to reign him in.

That people like you, and the president and the administration dismiss the need for evidence in support of the "end justification" spin is reminiscent of a people who favor justification and rationalization above principle and law.

It's dangerous to make assumptions about others state of mind. I want the evidence to show that Iraq did have WMD just as much as everyone else does. The fact that no WMD have been found to date weakens the legitimacy of the Iraq war. But I'm not going to fall into the lefty trap of trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube. We have taken over Iraq, what do you want us to do, say "WHOOPS, NO WMD, we're sorry - Saddam you can have your country back."

 

[Trader5287]

Believe him? Didn't you guys see him on tv interview about a year - year and a half ago?

He was great. He clearly wanted out of the anti-US hardline arabic jive. I remember thinking to myself there's a guy we can do business with after he pays off the Lockerbie tab. I think he was pissed about how much the lawyers were getting.

I'll be non-stop from JFK to Tripoli mixing with arabobabes and eurobabes on the beach there in no time. Look out Ibiza - Libya is hot...

Geo.

 

[Pabst]

Quote from TriPack:

There are a lot of conspiracy theories floating around about Bush's motives for the war in Iraq. Of course since the Democrats are out of power they are the ones floating the theories.

But I disagree that Bush went into Iraq with the intent of deceiving the American public about WMD. That is the innuendo of the left, but Bush has shown to be remarkably consistent in his statements about the reasons for going in. The WMD may show up and they may not show up. My view as a conservative is that Bush acted like a policeman - he had probable cause delivered by the CIA. He connected the dots on the available intelligence: Saddam pays money to suicide bombers and other terrorists, Saddam hates the USA, Saddam tired to assasinate a sitting US President, Saddam has WMD, Saddam has successfully weaponized many of the WMD and tested them on Iranians and the Kurds. Therefore there is a high probability that Saddam will at some point enable WMD to be used against the USA either via terrorists or directly.

That was his main premise. A different President might not have reached the conclusion that Bush reached based on the evidence but I won't fault Bush even if the WMD are ever proved to have been destroyed, because the threat of his WMD being used against Americans has been neutralized. Bush took all the evidence in and decided that he had probable cause that Saddam's WMD would be used against Americans. There were lots of other supporting reasons for going into Iraq from a humanitarian standpoint, that bolstered the need to go in. Bush was acting in the interest of the American people to eliminate a threat that could materialize at any time, which could not be defended against, and which could be much worse than 911.

After 911 there was a mandate for this type of action, in particular caused (though unintentionally) by the Mcarthy-ist manner in which the Democrats attempted to lay the blame for 911 on the President by making it seem like he didn't do all he could have done to prevent it. Did the rhetoric of the Democrats unintentionally influence the developing policy of a sitting President towards war?

Nicely done TriPack.

While ART is right that some doubted the exsistance of WMD's, members of the House and Senate, in leak rife D.C., had access to the same intelligence and counter intelligence that both Bush and the U.N. had. For the likes of Kerry and Edwards to put on this "deceived" act is 20/20 hindsight duplicity.

This President didn't start this business in the Islamic world, but he's intent on finishing it. Those on the left are mistaken to think these religious/cultural issues emanating from fundamentalist Islam are going to be solved through mere diplomacy. Isreal isn't the issue, Iraq isn't the issue, the heavy handedness of U.S. foreign policy is not the issue. The paramount issue is the fervent desire of perhaps 5-10% of the global Muslim population to destroy of the non-Wahabi world. With the comparatively high birth rates of Asia and Africa, coupled with Muslim immigration in Europe, the window to eradicate terror is now, not later. Enough is enough. And to those on the left who reminisce for a kindler, gentler Clinton policy, keep in mind. A bigger van, with more explosives, parked in a more strategic spot in an underground garage, could have inflicted much the same loss of life at the WTC in 1993, as two airliners did in 2001.

 

[spect8or]

Quote from Pabst:


The paramount issue is the fervent desire of perhaps 5-10% of the global Muslim population to destroy of the non-Wahabi world. With the comparatively high birth rates of Asia and Africa, coupled with Muslim immigration in Europe, the window to eradicate terror is now, not later. Enough is enough. And to those on the left who reminisce for a kindler, gentler Clinton policy, keep in mind. A bigger van, with more explosives, parked in a more strategic spot in an underground garage, could have inflicted much the same loss of life at the WTC in 1993, as two airliners did in 2001.

Halle-freakin-lujah. Someone's got the guts to just cut out and say it.

The diehard portion of the Muslim world is simply 1000% dead set against anything non-Muslim. It is just that simple. There's no need for any probing analysis into the whys and wherefores. They want you Muslim or they want you dead. And worse, the die-hards aren't just some looney fringe group that's derided by the moderates, they enjoy the full moral and even functional support of the so-called 'moderates'. Does anyone want to pretend that moderates aren't overjoyed at whatever military successes their die-hard counterparts might achieve? Scary picture, but one that had better be believed.
And as Pabst rightly points out, they are breeding like rabbits. France is going to be 20% muslim in the next 20 years. Hell, even if France wanted to go into Iraq it would have faced pretty much full scale riots at home. The muzzies there already terrorize the domestic population. There are some parts of France where non-Muslim girls need to where headscarves if they want to go out and not be molested. These muzzies know bounds. The time to act is now. Not when every third human on Earth is a muzzie. By then it's too late.
Pabst, I shudder to think what kind of bitch-ass response Clinton would have had to the towers going down in 93. Man, you just cannot trust a liberal with matters of national security and international significance. I mean, this thing with the war on terror is the Cold War all over again. Liberals in bed with the enemy.
People, when the going gets tough -- and it is getting tough -- it's time for the tough to get going. That means liberals, f--- off to sewing class or go and have a 'civil union' with your boyfriends. Stop tying the hands that are trying to save your sorry asses.

 

[axeman]

"No WMD, no evidence, no support for the efforts. The case to attack and conquer Iraq was weak without the emphasis on WMD.....
The "evidence" that led us into war, a preemptive with Iraq is still missing. We did not have the full support of our allies. Without that "evidence" our case for war couldn't have been made in the first place sufficient to convince anyone but chicken hawks and war mongers."

Complete nonsense.

We won the first war with Iraq.
We had a CONTRACT with them when they surrendered.

Over a dozen UN resolutions blatantly IGNORED by Sadam,
and we go in and ENFORCE the terms of surrender
and now this is a new preemptive war? Don't think so.

Perfect evidence of WMD's was never the core issue.
There were plenty of RATIONAL reasons to believe there was a high probability that he had them,
AND his blatant breaking of the law gave us every right to
go in, WMD's or no WMD's.

The focus on WMD's is simply spin by the sore losers in
this political fight.

We had a right to go in after desert storm.
Sadam gave us plenty of legal reasons to play police
and we enforced the terms of surrender while at the
same time ensuring he did NOT have the ability to hit
us hard in the future. Win win all the way around.

Now Khadafi takes notice and openly allows inspectors to
come in and give up WMD programs.
Holy shit... the Dems must be crapping their pants!

Now all we need is another terrorist strike, and Bush is
a SURE win. ( Which im not thrilled about, but better than
a chicken livered DEM )


peace

axeman

 

[ARogueTrader]

We had a contract, which was allowing inspectors to inspect, a job they said they needed more time to do to reach a conclusion, or do you forget?

Bush was impatient, as it didn't fit his timetable, so he forged ahead despite the requests of the UN security council for further inspections (you know, the other members who helped create that contract).

His motives? Political, no doubt.

Indeed a pre-emptive war, no doubt. That was the idea, to pre-empt Saddam from using WMD against the US. So, it required trumped up charges of possession of active WMD in order to justify the war, no doubt.

Why does the right want to gloss over this point? Because of political implications, no doubt.

Legal reasons to go in? Legal scholars (unlike yourself, or me for that matter) in the majority claim our efforts were illegal according to international law.

http://www.lcnp.org/global/IraqOpinion10.9.02.pdf

These chickenhawks in DC, hungry for control and access to the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world, are acting in a political manner, no doubt.

Even someone like you can see this if you look from an historical point of view of US politics and our relationship to the middle east.

Quote from axeman:

"No WMD, no evidence, no support for the efforts. The case to attack and conquer Iraq was weak without the emphasis on WMD.....
The "evidence" that led us into war, a preemptive with Iraq is still missing. We did not have the full support of our allies. Without that "evidence" our case for war couldn't have been made in the first place sufficient to convince anyone but chicken hawks and war mongers."

Complete nonsense.

We won the first war with Iraq.
We had a CONTRACT with them when they surrendered.

Over a dozen UN resolutions blatantly IGNORED by Sadam,
and we go in and ENFORCE the terms of surrender
and now this is a new preemptive war? Don't think so.

Perfect evidence of WMD's was never the core issue.
There were plenty of RATIONAL reasons to believe there was a high probability that he had them,
AND his blatant breaking of the law gave us every right to
go in, WMD's or no WMD's.

The focus on WMD's is simply spin by the sore losers in
this political fight.

We had a right to go in after desert storm.
Sadam gave us plenty of legal reasons to play police
and we enforced the terms of surrender while at the
same time ensuring he did NOT have the ability to hit
us hard in the future. Win win all the way around.

Now Khadafi takes notice and openly allows inspectors to
come in and give up WMD programs.
Holy shit... the Dems must be crapping their pants!

Now all we need is another terrorist strike, and Bush is
a SURE win. ( Which im not thrilled about, but better than
a chicken livered DEM )


peace

axeman

 

[axeman]

Ummmm.... 10+ years of Saddam thumbing his nose at us,
and a dozen or so UN resolution blatantly violated, and you think Bush was impatient?
What planet are you from?

The US was ***LAX*** in enforcing the cease fire agreement.

In no way can you say this was pre-emptive. This is what
you are glossing over.


Here is an analogy. A local drug dealer is terrorizing the block.
Selling drug, hookers, and beating up local shop keepers for
money.

Well, the Chief of police finally wakes up, and says no more.
Sends in the swat team at extra expense and takes the guy out.
But our puss* courts give him a slap on the hand and let
him go free with a strict parole agreement which requires inspections
to make sure he is not manufacturing drugs again.

The scum back lets inspectors in for about a week and then
prevents them from ever coming in again with some big thugs.
But then a new police chief comes in and doesn't enforce the agreement.
A few YEARS of this goes by, and yet another new
police chief comes in.

This guy takes notice and gives the drug dealer one more chance to comply.
The asshol** thumbs his nose at the chief again, thinking
this one is spineless as well.

The new chief sends in the SWAT team, and this time takes
care of him for good.

A pre-emptive strike? Or LAX enforcement of the original agreement?


peace

axeman

Quote from ARogueTrader:

We had a contract, which was allowing inspectors to inspect, a job they said they needed more time to do to reach a conclusion, or do you forget?

Bush was impatient, as it didn't fit his timetable, so he forged ahead despite the requests of the UN security council for further inspections (you know, the other members who helped create that contract).

His motives? Political, no doubt.

Indeed a pre-emptive war, no doubt. That was the idea, to pre-empt Saddam from using WMD against the US. So, it required trumped up charges of possession of active WMD in order to justify the war, no doubt.

Why does the right want to gloss over this point? Because of political implications, no doubt.

Legal reasons to go in? Legal scholars (unlike yourself, or me for that matter) in the majority claim our efforts were illegal according to international law.

http://www.lcnp.org/global/IraqOpinion10.9.02.pdf

These chickenhawks in DC, hungry for control and access to the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world, are acting in a political manner, no doubt.

Even someone like you can see this if you look from an historical point of view of US politics and our relationship to the middle east.