Job Discussion Forums

[Communist Smurf]

This is for those that can't be bothered with paying attention to history and can only get caught-up in current events. This is where President Bush Got His Marching Orders

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

CS

[skeptic]

That's an impressive list, CS. Where the heck do you find the time to look these details up? BTW, What are the sources for these quotes? And I am not questioning their veracity. I'd just like to know where you find these things.

Regardless of those hawkish statements, I object to the precedent of the preemptive strike--and the long-term geopolictical consequences of this action. I just think it opens the door for a greivious conflict with China in the not-too-distant future. We've lost much of our international credibility, and all moral highground--if we ever had had it. Others, however, (Taiwan?) will likely pay the price.

Evidence in the form of pre-9/11 plans for Iraq, suggests that the security of our country may not have been the sole, or even the primary, reason for the decision to strike. If I were convinced that security was uppermost in Bush's mind, I would feel less unsettled about our presence there.

I did support the first Gulf war, and still do, despite the fact that I lost my younger brother to an illness that traced back to his involvement there.

PS: You seem to be quite embittered toward the French. I believe it was established that the negative allegations raised against the French, at the time we seized Iraq, were shown to be false--and the sources of those press "leaks"were traced back to the administration. The rancor between our nations seems to be largely the result of political machinations by the incumbant leaders. Don't fall into that trap.

[Communist Smurf]

[Bindair Dundat]

[skeptic]

CS,

I confess I don't have the specifics of time, and place, and source, but I do recall a genuine outrage on hearing that US troops, on taking control of Baghdad, found evidence that France had connived with the Saddam regime to the point of actually providing them with strategically damaging military information intended to hamper our progress toward Baghdad, had aided and abetted the regime in its pursuit of nuclear and chemical weapons, among other charges.

I recall being even more outraged on learning that those accusations were debunked, and that the sources had been administration officials set on a deliberate campaign to discredit those who most vocally opposed our invasion.

Here is a source to substantiate, although it is not the original source that first alerted me to the deceptive Bush administration tactics: http://www.info-france-usa.org/news/statmnts/2003/levitte_us051503.asp
(follow the link for more specific details)

Don't get me wrong, I know what politics are about, and agendas will be pushed, but I bristle when unfounded and slanderous accusations are contested, but never make it to the public forum. And I did not hear any rebuttals in the Mainstream press.

My annoyance is a hold over from my time in Korea, when I well recall a fabricated incident (one among many, in fact) involving an alleged assault on a young Korean woman by four American GI's while she was riding the Apkujeong line. The initial reports, blared across all media outlets, was that the GI's were molesting the helpless young woman until a courageous Korean businessman stepped up to confront them. He was then beaten by the soldiers. The truth came out (after a strongly worded statement by the American ambassador) and only as a back page caveat in the English Dailies.

The Korean man was soused. The young victim was the 40 year old wife of one of the soldiers. The Korean man was verbally abusing her for betraying her race until they stepped off the car to avoid him. He followed and tried to assault her physically, and then the soldiers "restrained" him. That was when the crowd got involved and the truth got distorted beyond recognition. That truth only came out in a court trial that was not publicized. Years later, my students still had never heard the corrected story.

As I dealt with this issue of "yellow journalism" I spoke of the standards of the independent US press (the fourth branch) that would prevent this type of misrepresentation from occurring. I suggested that media owned and controlled by powerful Chaebols (huge corporations) would likely have an agenda and should be viewed with a jaundiced eye. Now, I find that those words were prophetic in that they describe the state of the US media today. And that media seems to be a tool of the Bush administration as surely as the Korean media was in league with Kim Young Sam.

On a side note, Kim Young Sam was an amazingly popular and respected leader of whom no ill was reported...until his anti-corruption probe implicated the heads of those self-same Chaebols. Within a matter of months, a series of negative news reports and family scandals broke out and his popularity plummeted. He left office in disgrace.

[mjed9]

So how do we explain the fact that both the US and UK corporations were among the biggest sellers of WMD material to Iraq up to as late as 1999? (Britain actually got caught with its fingers in the pie - Scott report)

How can we explain the fact that the US actually backed Iraq to "redefine" its borders with Kuwait just prior to the 1st Gulf war? A backing which was "unfortunately" misinterpreted by Saddam Hussein at that time which ultimately lead to a US invasion.

How do we explain that the US president of the time was officially quoted as saying Saddam Hussein is "our kind of guy" prior to the Gulf wars?

A fact I recently found out was that Hussein carried out his worst atrocities to his own people and surrounding countries not after the invasion of Iraq but while he was still a US puppet.

As to my sources - only from that liberal "American" nutcase Noam Chomsky - sorry but I am reading "Rogue States" at the moment. It's a sh*it book - really cr*ap - don't bother reading it! I don't why I'm forcing my way through to the end!

[moonraven]

Don't force yourself to read something that your linguistic skills are not apt for. Just be lazy--a very popular posture on this forum.

If anyone here had half the IQ of Chomsky, we wouldn't be here....

[Communist Smurf]

[skeptic]

CS:

You're right. It seemed that our little discussion was annoying a few of the internationals out there. American politics seems to be fair game as long as it's a nice lively interplay of "attack and defense". Anything deeper, and less antagonistic, is apparently a gross misuse of public space.

Well, feel free to skip this strand if you're a sports-minded individual. Myself, I only watch women's beach volleyball. That is why I so like Moonraven and Deborann.

Sorry, Colleen, but I picture you standing at the sidelines with a whistle. There's no bloodlust in your eyes!

My comment about China...they have designs on "the province of Taiwan". Every time they've started lobbing missiles off the coast, the US has steamed a carrier group over and placed its beefy arm around Taiwan's feisty shoulder. The people of Taiwan are about evenly split now as to whether they are part of China, or an independent nation--but the split falls along generational lines and the younger tend to think of Taiwan as Taiwan, rather than as Taiwan R.O.C. When the issue does come to a head in the near future...China could conceivably paint Taiwan as a threat to its security. Hey, it doesn't even have to be that convincing, does it? It doesn't have to be UN sanctioned. It could be a unilateral preemptive strike in order to protect the interests of national security. Who is to say otherwise? That is the nature of a precedent.

I know there are arguments, political and economic, that argue against this scenario; but strange things can happen, and often in a short span of time. (Look how quickly Russia displaced France and Germany as a primary US ally.) The point is that there used to be a large someone who would say otherwise, and the world would follow that lead. China and the US are destined to come to logger heads as they vie over global resources. Taiwan could become the catalyst. I like Taiwan. I lived there before and will likely live there again. I believe, in the event that this confrontation did materialize, the US would be standing on firmer moral ground if they'd not set that precedent.


BTW: Can we still say steamed over a carrier if it's nuclear powered?

[moonraven]

Just a minute there, the Moonraven is a pacifist tennis player. Bloodlust isn't needed when you're really good at what you do.

[skeptic]

[skeptic]

[/quote]Just a minute there, the Moonraven is a pacifist tennis player. Bloodlust isn't needed when you're really good at what you do.

[mjed9]

[Communist Smurf]

[Bindair Dundat]