The document has never been seriously questioned, and no one in authority from either government has denied its authenticity. You can't get much better evidence than that. But if you don't like it, just go with the videos of W assuring questioners that all wiretaps of Americans would be with warrants, or W's continual pairing of 9/11 and Saddam, etc. I have never seen a single independent intelligence report from any country - including the US - that supported the claims W&Co made about Saddam's WMDs in 2003. The most anyone not involved in the scam ever said is that there was a possibility he might have some small quantities of chemical weapons left over from earlier stockpiles, and a few forbidden missiles, and that he might be trying to begin to set up a nuclear weapons development program for the future. The "intelligence" the US got from Iran, much of it laundered through Chalabi, was just what W&Co wanted for their scam - and it now seems that was no coincidence. That is not independent intelligence. Chalabi seems to have hitched his wagon to the right horse, and Iran seems to have played its cards very well in a dangerous game so far. So if we are to avoid irresponsibility by assuming W actually believed what he was saying about Saddam's WMDs, we are left with the spectacle of the entire White House (Cheney and all) being played for fools by Adnan Chalabi, some Iranians, and maybe Israeli intelligence. There is evidence against that: the "fools" all got very rich off the war, they more or less dumped Chalabi, there are the Downing memos and other documents - as well as Cheney's energy task force meetings and similar coincidences - that point to Big Lie manipulation, and last but not least one simple circumstance: the UN inspectors were in Iraq. If W&Co actually had info about WMDs in Iraq, everything from quantity to location as they claimed, they were treaty bound to give that info to the inspectors, who were right on the scene and could have made Saddam destroy the weapons, rather than, as happened, send American soldiers into battle in a country claimes to hold large stockpiles of nerve gas and biological weaponry in known locations. So the responsible, evidence based conclusion is that W&Co lied about the WMDs. The funding has never been pulled for any aspect of the Iraq war (or any other war) over the past 25 years, let alone by Party pollitics.
iceaura: Ok so we've determined you don't work in government which means you've formed opinions on media reports which are based largely on documents released by various government agencies from across the world. I accept that. Members of congress are privy to more information than you and i could imagine despite the fact that i work in government too. If dubya lied and the evidence as you say is conclusive, then it would be acceptable and hell even necessary for dubya to be impeached. If this were the case i would gladly support it. My point here being why hasn't he been impeached? There has to be a good reason for it. If the case is as black and white as you say it is then at the end of the day bush should be in jail. Clearly it is not, clearly he isn't. Don't give me any conspiracy theories because they usually just don't add up. Dubya can't buy everyone in washington.
Bullshit. The republicans would have the most to gain if they did it. "Look we go after one of our own." they would retake Senate, House and the Whitehouse in landlsides. And the Dems would love to have the ammunition in election year. They would have a clean sweep. It's OBVIOUSLY not as balck and white as you would have it appear. Hell it's not even close enough to make the attempt and hoping the poor popularity of Bush would help it along.
LOL, quite niave aren't you. The only reason it has not happened this time is that George is a little too smart to sign it and they can;t get super majority.
There are certainly reasons. Whether or not you find them "good" migtht depend on how much you care about your country, and regard its government as something that ought to be acting for the good of that country. For one thing, it would require that the Republican s who have been backing him lockstep from day one would have to publicly admit they were very wrong about their entire system of governance, and either incompetent or corrupt in their jobs. But this would make an interesting line of research for you. I'd start with John Conyers's committee findings, and his reasons for not proceeding with impeachment proceedings back when the Reps controlled Congress. Then a look at the progress and changes since 2006, when the Dems gained a very slim and undependable technical majority - not enough to overcome serious opposition (and the Reps have been filibustering regularly), but enough so that for the first time the Judicial committee can begin - and has begun - considering articles of impeachment against at least Cheney, and maybe W. Then look at the calendar - in an election year, many old-line Dems fear making those kinds of waves. And I leave you with a quote from Representative John Conyers, when he was asked why he bothered with hearings on the deceptions and corruptions leading up to the Iraq invasion, when he lacked the muscle to do much of anything at all about it, let alone impeach. He said: "To take away the excuse that we didn't know".
Oh I see, so whose definition of WMD should we use? Should we define WMDs in terms of green goblins and space turtles? You’re making your own special definition of what a WMD should be then drawing the specious conclusion that everyone else’s definition is wrong. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And how the hell can classifying chemical and biological agents as WMDs be considered “PC”? Double Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Yes, you keep saying “technically” this and “technically” that as if you have some sort of scientific knowledge and actually know what you’re talking about. Why don’t you impress us all with your technical knowledge? Your “technical” reason why chemical and biological agents are not WMDs is not any that I have ever seen. Why don’t you start by showing us a reference that substantiates your proposed definition? And the fact that you do not think that chemical and biological agents can cause “casualties to big masses in a large area” fully demonstrates your lack of knowledge in this area. I don’t have to do that because they are merely your own made-up criteria. You are wrong. I challenge you to show me a military source that says chem and bio agents are not WMDs.
You have no clue what you are speaking of. First of all the Republicans ahave been complaining against Bush as much as the Democrats. Second whichever part actually impeaches him would win next presidency, senate and house hands down. Don't tell me the political powers have not figure that out. this is their profession.
You said this: I say that has never happened - not just that it didn't happen every time, as you claim, but that it never happened even once. This quagmire, like all the others have been, is the fault of the people who led us into it. It is and will be a quagmire whether the Dems cut funding (it's already cost more than Vietnam) or not.
In short: In small quantities they don't cause mass destruction. Why did I say small quantities? Because in large quantities EVERYTHING can be WMD even rain.... If you research the phrase, originally it was only used for nukes, although even back then other type of weapons already existed. Today's wider meaning came much later.
The Quagmire that was Vietnam was DIRECTLY becuase of lack of funding. Though i will note it was a Democrat who got us involved in that and oddly cut the funding while we were succeeding. As for this situation, we are NOT IN A QUAGMIRE. Every successful counterinsurgency in the history of the world has taken Nine years minimum. We are already seeing progress. The recent fighting between the Democratic Governemnt of Iraq and the extremist has been a major vicotry for our goals. The Iraqi army is handling this situation on their for the most part. We are seeing vast improvement in the political arena as well. Or were you to busy reinventing history.
Really? I thought it was because we were supporting an unpopular puppet regime. This is reinforced by the fact that the ARVN were not up to the task of defending their country against the NVA and Viet Cong. In spite of our advisers, training, and billions in military aid. It is said that the military operated with one hand tied behind their backs. To the extent that that refers to a restriction on land invasion by U.S. forces on North Vietnam, that's true. But today, General Westmoreland, who was the commander in Vietnam at the time, says that while at the time he felt he was constrained, he now understands that that was an effort by the president to prevent the U.S. coming into open military conflict with China and the Soviet Union. And Westmoreland says, "Thank God we avoided that. That was a correct policy at the time." Could more military pressure have been applied, in the sense of more bombing of the North? In one sense, no. We dropped two or three times as much bombs in North and South Vietnam as were dropped by all Allied Forces throughout World War II against all enemies. It was a tremendous air effort. But there are certain things bombing can't accomplish. They can't break the will of people under certain circumstances. They didn't break the will of the North Vietnamese. And it cannot stop the movement of the small quantities of supplies that were necessary to support the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese forces in the South. They didn't, and it couldn't; and no additional amount of money [or] bombing could have. - Robert McNamara http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/11/interviews/mcnamara/ When were we "succeeding"?
What year was that, when the funding was cut while we were succeeding ? And what were we succeeding at ? We threw money at Vietnam like crazy. We built airports, roads, ports. We bombed it more heavily than any country had ever been bombed (until Cambodia and maybe Laos). We did that for more than twice as long as we have been throwing money at Iraq. And it paid off, for some of us. As others have noticed, from the point of view of the people who got us into Vietnam it was a win - an excellent demonstration of what would happen to defiant countries. As with the otherwise incomprehensible blockading of Cuba and Nicaragua, and now the demonization of Venezuela, the threat of a good example is a serious threat and must be fought. How long do the unsuccessful ones take ? And what do you have at the end of the successful ones that is so much better ? If you've lost and you can't leave, it's a quagmire.
Actually every full counterinsurgency, (not the observer BS we did in Vietnam), that has gone on for 9 or more years has suceeded. the ones that fail are becuase people lose sight of the goal. The goal can vary, as there are many reasons for a counter insurgency. In this case it would be a ally nation with a democratic government and an ally against religous extremist.
Oy vey, taking a purely bombing look at it yes? Well I do have family that served in Vietnam in intelligence. To quote him "Before the funding was cut there was never a successful NV operation in southern vietnam. Suddenly one hand tied behind our back became two and we started losing ground almost imeediately." Considering the NV could not have had a endless supply of vietcongs it is possible if we had just stayed in the war of attrition that Vietnam would be a Democracy today.
Ok, lets weigh the evidence. You have an anonymous family member, while I'm quoting the secretary of defense who served from near the beginning of our involvement, to its height. Who has said that he realized we couldn't win in 1968. And who also said that our involvement was a mistake, and a misunderstanding. It could have been a democracy in 1955, but the south unilaterally rejected the nationwide election that had been agreed to in the Geneva accords. And the first insurgent attacks in the south happened in 1957. http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/vietnam/timeline.htm
So what year was that ? We can't afford much more in the way of "counterinsurgency" than we launched at Vietnam, or are launching at Iraq. And we spend as much money on such things as the rst of the world put together. The "observer BS" that was not a "full counterinsurgency" in Vietnam was the heaviest bombing campaign seen on the planet to that time. We lost 55,000 soldiers, 4X that seriously wounded, and got upwards of a two million people killed among the three countries of the combat zone. As far as the goal, we've already failed in Iraq. Whatever we succeed at doing now will be consolation or less.
So technically you're doing better this time round? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Ok ok i kid... Back to what i was saying previously, You cannot prove with 100% concrete facts that bush lied about WMD's in Iraq. I think what you're also forgetting is that Bush is only one man. You can't expect him to know everything... thats why he has advisers, secretaries etc etc.. If anyone of them summarised a report using the words Saddam has WMD's, and bush went to air with that line... does that make bush a liar? I'd say an idiot but not a liar. He might be the CinC, but he's not god. I know i'm coming up with all sorts of "excuses"... but these "excuses" are the doubts in my mind that cannot allow me to take a stand either side of the fence. You can throw all the information you can at me, but the variables at the end of the day make it so hard to state definately that he lied. I won't accuse a man of lying unless i know it to be 100% true. On Vietnam: I think what killed the war in the end was the public support, or lack thereof. Morale is one of the most important aspects in a military campaign, knowing that you're doing a good job to help people. When troops come home from a campaign overseas the last thing they want is to be spat on etc etc. Today it is different because despite the bad publicity, alot of soldiers (Australian ones at least), are satisfied with the job they have done and continue to do. Our campaign in Iraq despite the overall unpopularity of it, is rather successful because all a digger has to do is look into the eyes of an Iraqi child, who just beat them in an impromptu game of soccer, and know that the job is worth it. Thats the aspect of the conflict people are forgetting.
