Kerry Flip-Flops on Missing WMDs

[M1A2U2]

KERRY FLIP-FLOPS ON MISSING WMDS (Says they will turn up!)
Newsmax ^ | 4/29/04



While the Washington press corps seems to have missed it, WABC Radio's Steve Malzberg has been playing a clip of Sen. John Kerry in his biggest flip-flop yet - showing the presumptive Democratic nominee suddenly admitting that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction may soon turn up.

It's quite a turnaround for Kerry, who just a few weeks ago was complaining, "George Bush sold us on going to war with Iraq based on the threat of weapons of mass destruction. But we still haven't found them . . . . We were misled about weapons of mass destruction."

Key Kerry backer Howard Dean has been even more adamant, insisting to CNN earlier this month, "There were no weapons of mass destruction . . . This is Bushgate, which is far more serious than Watergate."

But Tuesday night on MSNBC's "Hardball," Kerry retreated.

"It appears, as they peel away the weapons of mass destruction issue - and we may yet find them," he told host Chris Matthews. "Look, I want to make it clear. Who knows if a month from now, three months from now, you find some weapons? You may."

Coincidentally or not, Kerry's reversal came a day after the Jordanian government announced that WMDs from Syria were part of an al Qaida plot to kill 80,000 people in Amman with poison gas. At least one of the plotters has admitted he was trained in Iraq.

The top Democrat's flip-flop also followed news that a suspected weapons of mass destruction production facility in Baghdad - disguised as a perfume factory - unexpectedly blew up, killing two GI's who were searching the plant.

Get Steve Malzberg's exclusive NewsMax.com column emailed directly to you at www.newsmax.com/malzberg


What do you kerry supporters who think weapons will never turn up have to say now? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
rofl rofl rofl

[cut]

oh dear, you americans are in a pickle, yet again you have to choose between to idiots for presidents, how do you do it?

[MEGR]

Ahhhhhh. The Republican Attack Machine! How dare they attack the candidate who's only credentials is his Vietnam service. So what if he threw the medals over the wall, back then medals and ribbons were interchangable. Besides he voted for the 87 billion before he voted against it. Oh yea, since he killed 20 vietcong, he should definately be able to run the country.

[M1A2U2]

oh dear, you americans are in a pickle, yet again you have to choose between to idiots for presidents, how do you do it?

"TO IDIOTS?"

You have a right to talk about idiots, it's two

[MEGR]

oh dear, you americans are in a pickle, yet again you have to choose between to idiots for presidents, how do you do it?

I think its better than obeying a Queen who does virtually nothing, and seems to hold no power when it comes to events. Good thing you guys have Tony, someone in the UK who has a backbone.

[Threelions]

"TO IDIOTS?"

You have a right to talk about idiots, it's two

"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left."
-Margaret Thatcher -


I think its better than obeying a Queen who does virtually nothing, and seems to hold no power when it comes to events. Good thing you guys have Tony, someone in the UK who has a backbone.

HAHAHAHAHA!!! you have a strange idea of backbone!! By your deffinition if a man acts like a lap dog and follows along then he has a back bone!! HaHaHAHA!! And what the hell does the queen have to do with anything?

Cheers

[Gringo]

Wow. I was right, Kerry is too changable.
Am I becoming psychic? Or just good at predicting stuff.

[GrantT]

I think its better than obeying a Queen who does virtually nothing, and seems to hold no power when it comes to events.

So how do we obey someone who does nothing and has no power? Hmmm, quite a riddle you have there.

[cut]

oh dear, you americans are in a pickle, yet again you have to choose between to idiots for presidents, how do you do it?

I think its better than obeying a Queen who does virtually nothing, and seems to hold no power when it comes to events. Good thing you guys have Tony, someone in the UK who has a backbone.

you honestly think that we obey the queen? the power in our governemnt is the ruling party and the leader they choose. Altough Blair has gone a bit presidential on us, he has two choices, do what the public want or lose the next election.

[Trident-za]

Wow. I was right, Kerry is too changable.
Am I becoming psychic? Or just good at predicting stuff.

My exposure to Kerry is extremely limited. However, have you considered the possibility that the man changes his opinion based on current information? As new facts become available, new opinions MUST be formulated, unless you're really dumb. If I understand it correctly, Bush himself has changed his mind about the WMD issue a fair bit from time to time.....

Just a thought.

[MEGR]

Then what's the point of having a queen? You know what, I don't care. You guys, have different opinions, and I really don't care to continue a conversation that is off topic which was my fault.

[scm77]

Kerry flip-flop? NO WAY! :cantbeli: :cantbeli:
http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/picturejokes/16514.JPG
rofl

[Trident-za]

rofl rofl I had no idea the american people took their "anti-the-other-party" stuff so seriously! One bad thing about living in South Africa is we already know who is going to win our elections, so we don't spend a lot of time running down the opposition, and creating such cunning/amusing images :(

[Gringo]

Wow. I was right, Kerry is too changable.
Am I becoming psychic? Or just good at predicting stuff.

My exposure to Kerry is extremely limited. However, have you considered the possibility that the man changes his opinion based on current information? As new facts become available, new opinions MUST be formulated, unless you're really dumb. If I understand it correctly, Bush himself has changed his mind about the WMD issue a fair bit from time to time.....

Just a thought.

yes, but it would usually be the other way around, 'There are WMDs in Iraq' , 'There aren't WMDs in Iraq'

There isn't any need to call me dumb.

[Trident-za]

I didn't call you dumb, Gringo - sorry if you read it thay way, it wasn't intended as anything other than a general statement about politicians who stick to their guns no matter what the evidence..... (very popular political "stance" in my country).

[100_Percent_HOOAH]

My exposure to Kerry is extremely limited. However, have you considered the possibility that the man changes his opinion based on current information? As new facts become available, new opinions MUST be formulated, unless you're really dumb. If I understand it correctly, Bush himself has changed his mind about the WMD issue a fair bit from time to time.....

He is allowed to change his opionion, but when he contiunually slams Bush day and night about their being no WMDs period (and has done so for several months now), then turns around and says, "oh it may be possible to find some soon." That right there is grade A bull****. He has his little lefty buddies like Sen. Kennedy speak at some of his events and they make statements like "the war was made up in Texas" and "this is Bush's Vietnam", but yet all of sudden he changes his mind, after he has been ripping Bush on the issue for months. I'm sorry, but I don't want that kind of person to run this country.

[American Patriot]

Kerry flip-flop? NO WAY! :cantbeli: :cantbeli:
http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/picturejokes/16514.JPG
rofl

nice pic

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

http://www.danzigercartoons.com/img/2004/dancart1994.jpg

[scm77]

^^ What does that have to do with anything?

[M1A2U2]

He is trying to change the topic because he realizes that kerry is a flip flopping liar

[Haiw]

:cantbeli:
I can't believe how some stupid docters could have left that metal plate in M1A2U2's head. :(

[M1A2U2]

I can't believe how some stupid docters could have left that metal plate in M1A2U2's head.

Wow what a great argument. were you in the debate class in school?

PS way to spell doctor

[big_les]

I can't believe how some stupid docters could have left that metal plate in M1A2U2's head.

Wow what a great argument. were you in the debate class in school?

PS way to spell doctor

Or alternatively, my pedantic friend, employing proper grammar and punctuation:

"An interesting argument. Perhaps you held a position in your school debating society?"

PS I see you have mispelled the word 'doctor', thereby unwittingly undermining your entire argument. Do you see?!"

[usa320]

Kerry is an idiot.

He changes his stance everytime there is a change in the polls. His tax reforms, his histroy on defence, his wanting to bring our troops home to leave iraq and let the terrorists win...his desire to "negotiate" with terrorist nations and groups.

Its disgusting. If he is elected, all the people killed by Al Qaeda, all the troops killed in action, they would have died in Vain. Afghanistan would still have trouble. iraq would end up in civil war, and would become a safe haven for terrorists, comparable to pre-war afghanistan.

it better not happen. he will NEVER have the support of the armed forces...thats for damn sure. This guy voted against all the war-winning equipment we have. he voted against pay raises, against funding for armor.

John Kerry is a ****tard piece of ****.

[usa320]

I think over the next few weeks the argument over rather or not Iraq had WMD will come to a screetching halt, and Kerry will look even dumber.

Iraqi HAD weapons of mass destruction, including VX, that WERE documented by the UN in 2002. But when the war began, they mysteriously are gone. Tagged items, we know were there, are now not there.

Now the whole deal going on in Syria and Jordan... Im telling you guys, they trucked the **** west.

[Threelions]

I think over the next few weeks the argument over rather or not Iraq had WMD will come to a screetching halt, and Kerry will look even dumber.

Iraqi HAD weapons of mass destruction, including VX, that WERE documented by the UN in 2002. But when the war began, they mysteriously are gone. Tagged items, we know were there, are now not there.

Now the whole deal going on in Syria and Jordan... Im telling you guys, they trucked the **** west.

Over the next few weeks i think Kerry will try and drift away from War, and move towards domestic issues. why? Because the bBush camp only has one platform for re-election, and that is war. If kerry shows the US public that he is a president for the USA and not for WAR then he will stand a very good chance of winning

On an unrelated topic, please inform me about the these WMD's that the UN found in 2002. As far as i know, and from what the UN weapons inspectors tell us nothing of any signifigance was EVER found.


The UN nuclear inspectors were sent into Iraq in November 2002, but failed to uncover any illicit weapons material. Mr Manley isn't surprised the inspectors didn't detect the banned weapons, as he now questions the existence of any significant stocks of chemical materials in Iraq.

Ron Manly UN weapons Inspector
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/politics/ronmanley_20030711.shtml
Cheers

[Haiw]

I can't believe how some stupid docters could have left that metal plate in M1A2U2's head.

Wow what a great argument. were you in the debate class in school?

PS way to spell doctor
You're trying to rip on me for not using the proper spelling (even though I do so 99% of the time) in my third language in a post that's riddled with linguistical mistakes itself? rofl

Oh and this was not a debate...just a remark on how idiotic your posts are. Oh and yes, I actually was on the debate team. Just look above in your posts and you'll see that they actually don't say ****, except some rather random remarks that only share their utter dislike of anything related to Kerry, liberals or left-wingers.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I think over the next few weeks the argument over rather or not Iraq had WMD will come to a screetching halt, and Kerry will look even dumber.

Iraqi HAD weapons of mass destruction, including VX, that WERE documented by the UN in 2002. But when the war began, they mysteriously are gone. Tagged items, we know were there, are now not there.

Now the whole deal going on in Syria and Jordan... Im telling you guys, they trucked the **** west.

Over the next few weeks i think Kerry will try and drift away from War, and move towards domestic issues. why? Because the bBush camp only has one platform for re-election, and that is war. If kerry shows the US public that he is a president for the USA and not for WAR then he will stand a very good chance of winning

On an unrelated topic, please inform me about the these WMD's that the UN found in 2002. As far as i know, and from what the UN weapons inspectors tell us nothing of any signifigance was EVER found.


The UN nuclear inspectors were sent into Iraq in November 2002, but failed to uncover any illicit weapons material. Mr Manley isn't surprised the inspectors didn't detect the banned weapons, as he now questions the existence of any significant stocks of chemical materials in Iraq.

Ron Manly UN weapons Inspector
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/politics/ronmanley_20030711.shtml
Cheers

Here's a bit of a UN Security Council report dated Feb 2003. It clearly states that Iraq is missing huge quantities of chemical weapons (as usa320 said).


The Executive Chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), Hans Blix, who last briefed the Council on 27 January, said more than 400 inspections at 300 sites had been conducted without notice, access was almost always provided promptly, and there was no convincing evidence that Iraq knew in advance that the inspectors were coming. The recent acceptance of aerial surveillance and interviews of scientists without witnesses, as well as appointment by Iraq of a second commission entrusted with relevant documentation search, had also been positive developments.

The outstanding questions remained, however – well known to Iraq -- concerning anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles. Iraqi documents, for example, left some 1,000 tons of chemical agents unaccounted for and the issue must be resolved either by presenting such items for elimination, or by presenting convincing evidence that they had been eliminated.

As for Al-Samoud 2 and the Al Fatah missiles, they could very well represent a prima facie case of proscribed missile systems, as they had been tested to ranges exceeding the 150-kilometre limit set by the Security Council.

Again the argument is not whether Iraq had these weapons. The war started because Iraq admitted to having them, then would not show where they were or prove that they were destroyed. The fact that they have not been found only proves that Saddam was good at hiding them - not that they didn't exist. These numbers come from Iraq, not the US!

Full report at http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7664.doc.htm

[Geezah]

oh dear, you americans are in a pickle, yet again you have to choose between to idiots for presidents, how do you do it?

I think its better than obeying a Queen who does virtually nothing, and seems to hold no power when it comes to events. Good thing you guys have Tony, someone in the UK who has a backbone.

I have allot of respect for the Royal family, not only have a large majority of them served their Country in the Military the Queen(the whole family) was a major moral booster during WW2 and drove a Military Ambulance. So what has she done, allot more than you!

[Geezah]

"TO IDIOTS?"

You have a right to talk about idiots, it's two

"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left."
-Margaret Thatcher -


Cheers

Margaret Thatcher rocks!

[pinkeye]

I think over the next few weeks the argument over rather or not Iraq had WMD will come to a screetching halt, and Kerry will look even dumber.

Iraqi HAD weapons of mass destruction, including VX, that WERE documented by the UN in 2002. But when the war began, they mysteriously are gone. Tagged items, we know were there, are now not there.

Now the whole deal going on in Syria and Jordan... Im telling you guys, they trucked the **** west.

Over the next few weeks i think Kerry will try and drift away from War, and move towards domestic issues. why? Because the bBush camp only has one platform for re-election, and that is war. If kerry shows the US public that he is a president for the USA and not for WAR then he will stand a very good chance of winning

On an unrelated topic, please inform me about the these WMD's that the UN found in 2002. As far as i know, and from what the UN weapons inspectors tell us nothing of any signifigance was EVER found.


The UN nuclear inspectors were sent into Iraq in November 2002, but failed to uncover any illicit weapons material. Mr Manley isn't surprised the inspectors didn't detect the banned weapons, as he now questions the existence of any significant stocks of chemical materials in Iraq.

Ron Manly UN weapons Inspector
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/politics/ronmanley_20030711.shtml
Cheers

Here's a bit of a UN Security Council report dated Feb 2003. It clearly states that Iraq is missing huge quantities of chemical weapons (as usa320 said).


The Executive Chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), Hans Blix, who last briefed the Council on 27 January, said more than 400 inspections at 300 sites had been conducted without notice, access was almost always provided promptly, and there was no convincing evidence that Iraq knew in advance that the inspectors were coming. The recent acceptance of aerial surveillance and interviews of scientists without witnesses, as well as appointment by Iraq of a second commission entrusted with relevant documentation search, had also been positive developments.

The outstanding questions remained, however – well known to Iraq -- concerning anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles. Iraqi documents, for example, left some 1,000 tons of chemical agents unaccounted for and the issue must be resolved either by presenting such items for elimination, or by presenting convincing evidence that they had been eliminated.

As for Al-Samoud 2 and the Al Fatah missiles, they could very well represent a prima facie case of proscribed missile systems, as they had been tested to ranges exceeding the 150-kilometre limit set by the Security Council.

Again the argument is not whether Iraq had these weapons. The war started because Iraq admitted to having them, then would not show where they were or prove that they were destroyed. The fact that they have not been found only proves that Saddam was good at hiding them - not that they didn't exist. These numbers come from Iraq, not the US!

Full report at http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7664.doc.htm

perhaps you missed the "mushroom clouds sprouting from american cities" frequently used by the bush administration. or the 45 minutes claim, courtesy of blair. what about the saddam-al qaeda link promoted before the invasion? the case for war was built on the premise that saddam's regime was an imminent threat to american national security, as in saddam's agents will be detonating wmds in downtown new york and los angeles. this was made abundantly clear. for example (from various sources, e.g., cnn, washington post):

On NBC's "Meet the Press," Vice President **** Cheney accused Saddam of moving aggressively to develop nuclear weapons over the past 14 months to add to his stockpile of chemical and biological arms.

"Increasingly, we believe that the United States may well become the target of those activities," Cheney said.

Rice acknowledged that "there will always be some uncertainty" in determining how close Iraq may be to obtaining a nuclear weapon but said, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

Speaking last week before the National Association of Black Journalists, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said, "Let us be very clear about why we went to war against Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein's regime posed a threat to the security of the United States and the world. This was a regime that had pursued, had used, and possessed weapons of mass destruction."

Before the war, Rice said, "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." The scary vision of mushroom clouds was repeated by Bush and General Tommy Franks, head of Central Command. Vice President **** Cheney declared Saddam to be a "mortal threat" on his way to "nuclear blackmail."

The new information indicates a pattern in which President Bush, Vice President Cheney and their subordinates -- in public and behind the scenes -- made allegations depicting Iraq's nuclear weapons program as more active, more certain and more imminent in its threat than the data they had would support. On occasion administration advocates withheld evidence that did not conform to their views. The White House seldom corrected misstatements or acknowledged loss of confidence in information upon which it had previously relied:

• Bush and others often alleged that President Hussein held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, but did not disclose that the known work of the scientists was largely benign. Iraq's three top gas centrifuge experts, for example, ran a copper factory, an operation to extract graphite from oil and a mechanical engineering design center at Rashidiya.

• The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of October 2002 cited new construction at facilities once associated with Iraq's nuclear program, but analysts had no reliable information at the time about what was happening under the roofs. By February, a month before the war, U.S. government specialists on the ground in Iraq had seen for themselves that there were no forbidden activities at the sites.

• Gas centrifuge experts consulted by the U.S. government said repeatedly for more than a year that the aluminum tubes were not suitable or intended for uranium enrichment. By December 2002, the experts said new evidence had further undermined the government's assertion. The Bush administration portrayed the scientists as a minority and emphasized that the experts did not describe the centrifuge theory as impossible.

• In the weeks and months following Joe's Vienna briefing, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and others continued to describe the use of such tubes for rockets as an implausible hypothesis, even after U.S. analysts collected and photographed in Iraq a virtually identical tube marked with the logo of the Medusa's Italian manufacturer and the words, in English, "81mm rocket."

• The escalation of nuclear rhetoric a year ago, including the introduction of the term "mushroom cloud" into the debate, coincided with the formation of a White House Iraq Group, or WHIG, a task force assigned to "educate the public" about the threat from Hussein, as a participant put it.

in this climate of fear, it's not surprising many americans would support the invasion. however, over time, the case for invasion has undergone considerable change, so now the wmd issue is no longer present on any radar screen, for the threat to american national security was overstated. the bush administration now speaks of liberating iraqis from saddam's regime. the pied piper cannot change his tune.

let's make one thing clear. saddam deserved to get his sorry ass kicked. the fact that the international community supported him during the 1980s, turned a blind eye to his repeated use of chemical weapons against iran and kurds is a great tragedy and simply unacceptable. the american-led invasion was several decades too late, for the international community should have punched saddam in the throat a long time ago. but the u.s. and its few coalition partners have done the iraqis and the international community a big service by toppling saddam and his murderous regime. what i and countless millions object to is the manner in which the bush administration has handled the whole mess. the bush administration deliberately mislead the american people by stovepiping intelligence, presenting erroneous information as factual, attempting to intimidate sovereign states with this idiotic "if you're not with us you are against us" rhetoric, undermined critical multilateral approaches and organisations, proceed with an invasion despite not having a comprehensive gameplan, and basically f$%king up bigtime on all fronts. as long as we live in a democratic society where the concept of government by the people for the people permeates our political value system, the constant bullsh$t fed to the american people by bush and his cronies must come to an end. bush is accountable. he is not an autocrat (someone inform cheney). so why the flagrant deceit?

[Threelions]

Pinkeye,

Great post! i should have none you would be a wise man, you are wearing the BLUE!!!!

Cheers

[snake]

First let me say you can put the two in a bag and shake it up and you could'nt tell one from the other

But to me a Flip Flop beat the sh*t out of a LIE any day of the week

and yes I'm a Republican go figure

Be Safe
Snake

[M1A2U2]

Pinkeye, maybe you should make a post that has something to do with the thread. If you read it, it is about John Kerry saying we will find weapons it doesn't have anything to do with Bush lying to us. If you wanna be ignorant and call it "Bush Intelligence" that said Iraq had weapons fine just go do it on another thread. We here understand that it was everyone in the US Government that said Saddam was an imminent threat including John Kerry. You choose to ignore this. So please take your selective thinking somewhere else.

[Kitsune]

Does it really matter wether they find now a hidden storeaway of WMDs in Iraq?

Fact is: the US government had no real info on Iraqi WMDs but they claimed they had an "mountain of undeniable evidence". They lied to their own people, to their own soldiers, to their allies and to the world about this.
If now by chance the lie would turn out to be the truth, what does it matter? This Neocon government intentions were not sincere, that's what is important.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Did you guys happen to follow this story at all as it evolved? Because you keep stating that there may not be any WMDs. This is a dead issue. It is not up for debate. There is nobody who disputes that Iraq had WMD. Not Iraq. Not the UN. Nobody.

Here's the Reader's Digest version of how it went down:

UN- "do you have WMDs, and if so, how much?"
Saddam - "yes we do, we have this much"
UN- "thank you. where are they?"
Saddam- "over there by the couch"
UN- "well, there's some here, but according to your list, this isn't all of them."
Saddam- "oh yeah, I forgot, we destroyed a bunch of it already"
UN- "fine, show me the documents verifying their destruction"
Saddam- "dang it, my dog ate all that stuff, but really we did"
UN- "oh, well alright..."
Bush- "WTF are you doing UN, you're gonna accept that as an answer?"
UN- "well if it's good enough for them..."
Saddam- >maniacal laughter from the kitchen, sound of oil-stained money changing hands<
Bush- "you gotta be f*in kidding me..."
>sound of door breaking in, Saddam screaming like a woman<

I just posted an article from the UN, based on numbers from Iraq, that has completely blown your arguments to hell. Yet you continue to blather on with particulars that have absolutely nothing to do with the issue.

So, was the UN lying?

Was Iraq lying?

Because for your arguments to hold water, both must have been in on the conspiracy.

As for the point about "imminent danger" - the 9/11 commission here was trying to hang the Bush administration out to dry for failing to act prior to 9/11 on various murky reports...which we now see as "imminent danger". It was Bush's call, and his job to do so. Only an idiot woud leave Saddam with 1000 tons of "lost" chemical weapons at his disposal.

[usa320]

"mushroom clouds sprouting from american cities

are you bull****ting me? You rather wait until after millions get killed to take action?

[budanski]

Does it really matter wether they find now a hidden storeaway of WMDs in Iraq?

Fact is: the US government had no real info on Iraqi WMDs but they claimed they had an "mountain of undeniable evidence". They lied to their own people, to their own soldiers, to their allies and to the world about this.
If now by chance the lie would turn out to be the truth, what does it matter? This Neocon government intentions were not sincere, that's what is important.

Playing the ole broken record again, eh?

Its amazing how the critics only have this (WMD) to harp on even though they failed to see how getting rid of saddam is a good thing. By disposing Saddam for fear that rogue groups would get access to scary weapons, suddenly Dr. Khan, Khaddafi, and even a few mullahs seemed to wish to come clean. Not bad for not having fire one shot to make that all happened. How are we to keep our "war-mongerer" status, now?

Lets start with first and foremost, violation to its ceasefire agreement, that required documented destruction of admitted WMD he possessed which he failed to destroy. Constant attacks on coalition aircrafts in the "No-Fly" zone. A constant threat to his neighbors. Support for terrorist organizations such as Hamas, but then again, you knew that (http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?sid=9&aid=15022).

Seeing that I'm paying alot more for gas as of late, the "Its all for oil" (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/04/22/wirq22.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/04/22/ixportaltop.html) wouldnt stick.

So we get back to the whole "Bush Lied". What everyone can agree on: We have not found expected WMDs in Iraq. What we should also agree on: Everyone -- the British, the French, the Germans, the Russians, the Chinese, the UN, the US, even the Iraqi military -- believed WMDs were in Iraq one year ago (http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040319-082104-9642r.htm).

[Kitsune]

Sorry I do not understand you at all Budanski. Nor do I understand the forgiveness of the American people in this matter. And yes I followed the matter very closely.

Bush LIED. They painted a picture of a Saddam Hussein secretly stockpiling biological and chemical weapons...lots of it. They claimed to have a "mountain of undeniable evidence" for it. They told the world they had proof for mobile chemical labs and stuff like it. And at the same time they repeatedly claimed that he was trying to build a nuclear bomb...that they knew this was underway and that the threat of this was so great that an attack on Iraq was necessary to prevent this.

And all this was a lie. Simpe as that. Were is this "mountain of evidence"? Now that Saddams gone, the Baath regime is gone, they could show it. But they do not have any. The proof for those mobile labs...they had some pictures of trucks that they could not identify...thats it. The "evidence" for chemical and biological wepaons? Nonexistent. No satellite photos, no reliable spy reports...NOTHING that would warrant a preemptive strike. The nuclear weapons? The silliest of forgeries, everyone German, British, French intelligence KNEW it was wrong. So did American intelligence...Bush put it in his state of the union speech nonetheless (and usa320 seems still to believe it :cantbeli: , although it is PROVEN that this was Bull****).
Of course they could exspect to find some caches of mustard gas or something, hidden away somewhere. And that is what they hoped for (not unreasonably) but they had no idea where to find it. The other nations thought something like it. And many were of course cowered: with the Americans claiming so self assuredly and repeatetly that they had this "mountain of evidence", who wants to speak against it? They have satellites and stuff after all, God knows what they can see...and who wants to stand in their way, when they want this? All these nations from Britain over Spain and Poland to Japan...do you really think they were absolutely convinced and believed in this? The **** they did: They just wanted to ingratiate themselves, keep their special or atleast good relationship with the US and played along.
But to the surprise of the Bush government, there nothing even remotely similiar to WMDs has ever been found. Nothing they can show the world as "Saddams fearsome arsenal of death". A few mustard gas grenades had sufficed...quite harmless and certainly no real thread to western civilisation, but enough.

At NO point this US government was truly afraid of Saddam, or of his WMDs. They KNEW his armed forces were weak. They KNEW his WMD arsenal were some leftovers at best. They had the Iraqis contained, with no flight zones and all. American jets destroyed Iraqi radar and SAM installations at will, over years, whenever they wanted. Sorry, this man never posed a threat to western civilisation. And Bush and his pals knew this very well.

They lied about it. That, budanski, is the sad truth. They send American (and Blair British) soldiers to Iraq with this stories of this alleged threat, Saddam would pose to America and the world. The American media mentioned him countless times in the same or next sentence with 9/11, although there is absolutely not the slightest bit of evidence that he had to do something with it. They send those soldiers there, and some of them died, with all those lies in their minds. That is not a right thing to do. A soldier who riskds his life, deserves to know the true reason he is fighting for. I really do not know why you or the American people are that damn forgiving in this matter.

But these are your soldiers. You have to know what you are doing.

[Kitsune]

Ok...why not enlighten you? What was this war for, then? Ok, I tell you Budanski. The most important reason in one word?
OIL.

Now you say: "But gasoline hasn't become cheaper...can't be!". And I have to answer: things are a bit more complex Mr. Budanski.



The whole thing comes down to Neoconservative belief. The "neocons" are a political movement that seems to have been formed largely during the Clinton era (of course many of them are longer in the buisiness). Typical neocons are Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Pearle as well as many others which have come to power with the Bush government. Their theories are no secret: most of it can be found on the internet.

The basics of their belief in short (I try to present them in a as neutral way as I can manage):
First a bit Fukuyama: History has a goal and its goal is the spread of the democratic political system and the "capitalist" economy. Both things are the best that exist, it simply can't get better and are of course primarily represented by the USA.

Now under the Clinton administration the prevalent idea was, that the US had won the cold war and is therefore entitled to reap the profits, a "peace dividend", a time to lay back, reduce the military and enjoy its primacy. This idea is flatly rejected by the neocons, on the contrary: After the collapse of the Soviet Union the USA has a "window of opportunity", to reign supreme and to shape the world. According to their ideas America has now even to enhance its efforts, strenghten its military, use its power to make sure that, with american guidance, democracy and capitalism spread. The 21. century has to become another "American century" (that is the name of one of thier most famous "think tanks"...under this heading you should find a lot of their essays and ideas on the net).

To achieve this the US has to do, among others, two things:
1) Prevent a rival from coming up. The US are often focused on China, but this idea includes a more unified Europe and possibly Japan. And there is still Russia, of course.
2) Control the most important ressources and raw materials of the planet.

This secures Americas supremacy for the time to come.

Ok that is enough basic neocon ideology.

As everyone is well aware OIL is one of the most important raw materials.
The best areas to find it at present is the Near East and South America. The most important region to find it in the near future is the Caspian sea region.
Today and for the near future the US gets most of their oil from South America...but Europe, China and Japan do get it mainly from the Middle East.

Iraq now is a large oil producer...but certainly not the biggest. But it has an interesting position: If you would control Iraq you could:
1)Control its own oil supply
2)Protect the Kuwaiti oil supply
3)Apply pressure towards the arabic states to the southwest, guaranteeing that they behave. This includes Saudi Arabia, Qatar and others. They ARE the most important oil producers of the Near East right now, next to Kuwait and Iraq.
4)Use it as base for operations toward the caucasus mountain/ caspian sea region north of it and secure US predominace within this region.
5)Apply pressure towards Iran. Another oil producer and old time foe of America.

Added to this, Iraq was quite weak at the dawn of the 21st century: The US had already pretty well contained Saddam, his armed forces were a sad joke, his rule crumbling, his control over the Kurdish nothern Iraq area had already waned. All it needs is a good push and his whole regime comes crashing down. All you have to do is occupy it, install a puppet regime, give the Iraqi people individual freedom and let capitalims work his miracle and in no time you have a nice subservient satellite state, which staunchly supports the US in the Near East. From its territory US armed forces can do point 1) to 5) above, hell, you probably could even use Iraqi armed forces as auxilliary troops. It worked with the Germans after all.
And that is only the start: within a few decades the whole Near Eastern region could be transformed. Pro US states with happy, prosperous market economies wherever you look. And Washington controls the oil the Eurowheenies, Jappos and Chinks need so badly...hrhrhr...
All one needs is a good pretext...err, reason, to tackle Iraq. A reason the American people understands. Even the dumbest of them. And what is the best reason? "They have attacked us!"
Hmf, yeah. But they haven't, haven't they? Of course there is 9/11...but there is no proof.
What about: "They are going to attack us soon!"? That's a good one, but Saddams army is a joke...wait a minute...weapons of mass destruction! That's it!!! Thats an idea!!!

The rest is history.



Unfortunately, this isn't a joke. Nor did I made things up. It has already become quite clear (as clear as things in the murky world of politics can get) that something like this was on the mind of Bush and his pals. They wanted this war for geoplitical reasons, for US supremacy. There may be other reasons, most of all money. Bush has increased federal spending enomously, military budget went up, more than 60 billion Dollars every year. Intelligence services got more money as well. The action in Afghanistan had a price tag of at least 30 billion, the Iraq war costs 150 billion Dollars or more and still counting.
This money does not vanish, it is taken from the US taxpayer and is given to someone...a lot of companies and people get freaking rich here. People Bush, his family, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz and others are well connected to. I admit that I have no clue how this "money reason" was weighted to the "geopolitical" one. More important? Less? Even? Anyones guess.

But the damage Bush has done is enormous. Federal debt is growing fast. Staunch allies do not trust the US anymore. There is France and Germany. "Screw them", you say? Well they are not the only ones, Britain, Spain, Italy, Poland, Japan...everyone who has supported America in Iraq regrets it by now. Everyone. Then there is the matter of credibility: next time the US president speaks of a WM threat they know of, people will laugh into his face.
This is damn serious. Allies, credibility, trust...these are vital elements of what Joseph S. Nye jr. dubbed "soft power". In fact, these are things that Americas hegemony is based on: the US was admired, not feared. Bush has squandered lots of it. The whole damage cannot even been assessed, yet.

With all this in mind, I have a hard time to understand how anyone can still support Bush. Or do you really still believe in the WMD tale? Can one be that gullible?
But, well.

[budanski]

So that would make the Neocons in cahoots with the real puppetmasters (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3395977/) then.
Ah, man. We sure are lucky to have folks like you (http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html) around to clear things up for us bumpkins.

Seeing that you're concentrating ONLY on WMDs and oil, and omitting all the other reasons I've listed, please explain how it was possible for the Clinton Administration, along with your own country's intelligence, France's, China's, etc. all shared the same intelligence were all duped by the Neocons as well? Quite contradicting from what was believed was it not? As I said before, WMD was not the main reason for going into Iraq. Previous UN resolutions acknowledged that he had them but 1441 required proof that they were destroyed. He failed, the U.S. acted. For god's sake, Saddam even admitted to having these wmds and as recently as in 1998 to UN inspectors before they were kicked out. Are you to expect the U.S. to be engaged with Saddam indefinitely in the no-fly zone and wasting taxpayer money having our troops protecting Saudi Arabia and Kuwait? You of all people should know how that feels or have we forgotten the time when the evil americans kept out the peaceful Red Army?

With constant world scrutiny, you'd think it'll be worth it for the U.S. to go to war for oil, even though only 15% of our oil comes from the Middle East? Last checked Europe gets over 50% of your oil from the M.E., yet we know how everyone prefers TotalFina and Lukoil rather that the evil Haliburton to have contracts in Iraq — the same company that owns Red Adair's company who put out the oil fires in Kuwait after the first Gulf War, so was that war instigated as well? Instead, the U.S. pledged $87 billion to secure and rebuild Iraq — one of the largest direct-aid programs since the Marshall Plan. Oh, my bad for bringing up the "M" word to a European, but thats the fact.

This coming from someone who has a ex-terrorist as their foreign minister! talk about conspiracy theories.

[Kitsune]

budanski wrote:


Ah, man. We sure are lucky to have folks like you around to clear things up for us bumpkins.


No problem.:D



One would exspect things to be like this: A reluctant President who is convinced by his experts that Iraq is a threat. A man who really does not want war...but finally has to act because of the thrreat this evil dictator poses. And after trying to resolve the matter peacefully, again and again, is left with no other choice.
Now budanski...be honest. DO YOU REALLY think it was that way?
Unfortunataly, fo me it seems to be a bit different. Bush and his pals wanted the war first, they needed a pretext so they came up with the WMD matter. They applied pressure to their intelligence guys to bring them "proof". "You don't have any? Look harder! Still don't have any? Well, I'm gravely dissapointed...I don't think you are working hard enough. And you want to be promoted?..."

Look budanski, this whole thing has nothing to do with conspiracy theories any more. It is a FACT that the "mountain of undeniable evidence" the Bush governement claimed to have does not exist. And that makes them liers. Period. If you believe what politicians say, especially the Neocon government, you are probably the one who needs aluminium foil.

For the rest of your post, I clarified most of your problems. The neocon ís interested in the near eastern region because of oil. Sure the US gets most of their oil from South America, but Europe, Japan and China are depending on the Near Eastern oil. (Read my second post again, look closely, you should find it). Would there be no oil in this region you can be assured, there would be no interest in Iraq and no military intervention.
The Bush governement wanted to transform the whole region, starting with Iraq. The only problem is: it doesn't work. But that is another matter.

As for the various vassal states aka "allies" of the US, you have probably no idea how important the US was to them. First among them is Britain, who follow America wherever it goes. But it includes Germany. All these nations were dependent on the US for security, because of the Sovietunion. After the Warsaw Pact had collpapsed, they simply left things as they were...and suddenly the master called them to war. To a very doubtful war. And they had to decide...Play along with Bush and run with the horde or to tell it like is and risking their relations to the US, possibly even be left isolated.
And since most Euros are sissies, most played along. All your coalition of the willing: Britain, Spain, Netherlands, Dutchland, Italy, Japan, S.Korea...no one felt threatended by Saddam. No one. No one believed in the cause of the war. No one. Every one was in the boat for political reasons, and political reasons only. (And even Germany...we showed courage when it declined to participate in Iraq. But afterwards, the deal was: The US forgive Germany...and Germany enhances its Afghanistan efforts. Good puppy again. The only ones with guts are the French).

As for the intelligence services who saw things as the US did...statements of intelligence services are similiar to political statements: "The US want this war? They shall get it. Has Iraq WMDs? Why not? Sure! Somewhere there will be some. Yeah, we think that Saddam has WMDs." But that is something different from feeling threatened. Thats is just playing along.

As I said, everyone who allied with Bush over the Iraq issue is regretting it by now. (Bush is regretting it himself. But now he has to see it through). And one thing has become quite clear: This dependance on the USA has to stop for the European nations or one is bound to get into situations like this.
If Europe has finally achieved independence and does not fear to make his own foreign policy (still a way to go but it will happen) we should not forget Bush. The man has done more for European unity than anyone else. We Europeans truly stand united when it comes to Bush... He should get a statue in Brussels.
"George Walker Bush - Father of True European Unity" written on it or something.

[budanski]

Again, its folks like you and Ducimus who keep harping on the "Bush lied" chorus. Its pure conjecture. There is no proof that he deliberately misled the American people into a non Franco/German approved war. It seems you have little knowledge on how intelligence works. Intel trickles in bits and pieces, intel agencies try to make an overall picture. Given the picture that was presented, the president made a decision. (George Tenet's take (http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2004/tenet_georgetownspeech_02052004.html)) Act, or wait till its too late (ala 9/11 — a great example as of late, the 9/11 commission itself has focused what could have been done and charged bush that he didnt connect the dots to prevent this. Could this be applied to Iraq as well, or no?). The president didnt have the luxury of hindsight 20/20 as yourself who sits there being an armchair foreign policies expert. I laid it out to you that even the Clinton Administration (let me spell this out to you, this is P-R-I-O-R to the Bush Administration) and intelligence agencies all over the world had all the same intel and all universally agreed/believed that the intel was correct at the time. The majority of the WMD reports the US used were intel from the UN themselves. (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005026)

Look, if you're still in denial (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0306thurlet062.html) on the whole "Bush Lied" propaganda even with the proof I've given, I don't feel a need to explain it to you for a third time... Some folks will never get it, then. (http://www.realnews247.com/poll_shows_many_germans_see%20_us_%20behind_9_11.htm)