Don't need to. They all quite clearly state the case as to why Saddam could not be allowed to remain in power. Bush didn't make that up. Jr. means same name. He is a son. Of course I know it was just a rhetorical slam. Wrong, we took no sides in the Iraq/Iran war and supported BOTH sides to a draw. We wanted neither to win. Oh I agree Bush41, he is not a Sr., should have gone on and removed him then. Clinton failed even though he was the one who made it our official policy, our stated goal. And that was an act of war.
The UN cataloged his WMD during the first round of inspections, they were in the process of monitoring the disposal of those when Saddam halted the inspections. They were never all accounted for. They were beyond any reasonable doubt and we found the evidence of them after we removed him. He had ramped down his research and halted production of WMD, he didn't need to be in active production, awaiting the removal of sanctions. Yes sairn gas, mustard gas, weaponized anthrax are some of the most lethal weapons and they were the ones Saddam had possessed and wanted to possess again. No we knew he had them and we continued to find them after we removed him, That he could not properly store them and in his practice of hiding them many degraged is of no importance. The fact is he still had some he had not accounted for and was certainly ready willing and able to produce more. I find it even funnier that you maintain we knew without a doubt Saddam had no ready to go WMD, no programs to produce them, no further desire to possess them and yet everyone wanted to go look for them and they were all never accounted for. What happened to the ones we never found? Then how was everyone convinced if that had not been ruled out? I have no idea how his yes he may still have WMD answer supports your case. Like this statement "UNITED NATIONS As fresh signs emerged that the United States is making headway in winning support for military action against Iraq, chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix provided the Bush administration with new ammunition Wednesday, saying Baghdad has not provided evidence of "a fundamental decision" to disarm." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79671,00.html As inspectors went in front doors we had films of Saddams guards secreting things out back doors. Our position on Saddams seeking trade agreements with Niger were not based on those documents. The intell was spot on. Where did I claim the deal went through? We know he was seeking to purchase yellow-cake. And there is only one reason he would. See above, after we gave Saddam his last, this is it, we are not kidding, don't test us this them warning Blix still reported to the UN Saddam was not cooperating and YOU show ME where the UN said he WAS in compliance. Are you denying Blix wanted to go inspect some more? If not then what is your case here? Because you know the truth is he did. That was clear and it was a threat we could not allow to grow. Knowing what we know now confirms what President Clinton and the Congress then and then during the Bush term knew. Saddam could not be allowed to remain in power. You don't know what we did find and what we did learn after his removal? I've cited just a short list already in this thread. Here are the OFFICIAL findings From the final ISG report under Duelfer # 'Beginning in May 2004, ISG recovered a series of chemical weapons from Coalition military units and other sources. A total of 53 munitions have been recovered.' Why haven't you heard that? Possibly because that information was buried on page 97 of Annex F of Volume 3 of the Duelfer Report. Even if the number of WMD found were short of the 'large stockpiles' threshold demanded by invasion critics, what about the ability to produce and use WMD in a short amount of time? Here, the Duelfer Report is explicit. # '[Saddam Hussein] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.' # 'we have clear evidence of his intent to resume WMD production as soon as sanctions were lifted' # 'Saddam did express his intent to retain the intellectual capital developed during the Iraqi Nuclear Program.' # 'Iraq took steps to conceal key elements of its program and to preserve what it could of the professional capabilities of its nuclear scientific community.' # 'ISG found a limited number of post1995 activities that would have aided the reconstitution of the nuclear weapons program once sanctions were lifted.' # 'Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable.' # 'Iraq's historical ability to implement simple solutions to weaponization challenges allowed Iraq to retain the capability to weaponize CW agent when the need arose.' # 'Iraq Could Maintain CW Competence With Relative Ease' # 'ISG judges that Iraq's actions between 1991 and 1996 demonstrate that the state intended to preserve its BW capability and return to a steady, methodical progress toward a mature BW program when and if the opportunity arose.' # 'Depending on its scale, Iraq could have reestablished an elementary BW program within a few weeks to a few months of a decision to do so...' http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/...ds_really.html
So simply not allowing weapons onto planes wouldn't have stopped it? You'd have to do ALL that just to stop it? Okay.. So how do hijackers hijack planes with no weapons? Let me re-orient you to the point.. YOU claimed there were legal hurdles and problems in the system which prevented anything being done about 9/11. So I'll ask you again, WHAT legal roadblock was there stopping those things? Of course not.. I didn't argue shutting down the whole transportation infrastructure wouldn't have worked.. I simply am reminding you that this is a straw man suggestion as it was not the preventitive action I specified, you made up something much more impractical and ridiculous to try to talk about, as though preventitive measures can't be more common sense than that. The warnings for years 2000 or earlier are IRRELEVANT to Bush, his presidency the decisions he made and the concern he had or didn't about terrorism.. By the way, since you make this argument, give an example of a "routine" warning from the last ten years that most closely resembles the August, 6 PDB. Is that it? So more like practically nothing.. Who did the report? You don't need to know when someone will strike if you find out who will strike.. Capture these two future hijackers and ask THEM when they plan to strike and where. Your fallacy is in assuming you couldn't have stopped it because you didn't know the details, but fail to acknowledge the reason you don't know the details is you're not actively seeking them and perhaps you could know the details. The original pre 9/11 investigation done by the FBI, multiple agents who worked on the 9/11 case (yes this was an open case file before 9/11) who claimed that they could have stopped it but were prevented from it, including Robert Wright, Colleen Rowley etc. Again cite the warning from the past ten years about OBL striking inside the United States and planning operations using hijacked aircraft. Shifting the goalposts? You claimed every single major investigation all agree with you about 9/11 being unpreventable.. I asked you to cite one example, and you can't.. Richard Clarke isn't a "major official investigation" or whatever it was.. Moreover, you don't even show us a quote from him anyway! Show me the Richard Clarke quote where he says 9/11 was unpreventable.. Here I'll show you how: Richard Clarke: "Now would that have stopped 9/11? I don't know. It would have stopped those two guys, and knowing the FBI the way they can take a thread and pull on it, they would probably have found others...there was a chance... but they didn't take it." You're just doing the same thing you did for Blix, disenginuously claiming they say one thing, (failing to show the quote of course) when really they say no such thing and have instead said the oppositte. Yes I know they issued orders that's what we were talking about! The orders were issued TOO LATE, just minutes too late.. You refuse to confront the elephant in the room that those orders could easily have been issued sooner. You can name no reason why they couldn't have been. You do realize that even your 9/11 commission report claims that they thought flight 11 was heading towards Washington D.C.? Again the official story is (I assume you support it) that they were operating under the assumption a plane was heading towards DC. "phantom" flight 11 they called it. Not explained by the interview... You come across the expert, so just tell me what "setting up communications" entails? Yeah sat in the chair for 7 minutes, spent at least a further 20 on milling about and having his important little press conference. Don't sit here pretending like he sprang into action after just 7 minutes. Why don't you ever just answer the question? What would Bush have done with the extra time had it finished sooner? Right so I assume you don't ever judge decisions anyone has ever made in retrospect... Never went "probably shouldn't have driven drunk" or anything like that... Because it's unfair.. Something tells me if I look up your posts I might find some of you second guessing the past decisions of others including leaders, am I right? "the SS tells him when he will move and to where. There was nothing for him to do, his advisers had to access the situation get him the facts and the SS and military had to decide when and where to move." ".....and he wasn't going anywhere until the SS and the military made sure what if any imminent danger existed, how they would move him and where they would go and get security beefed up along the whole way." "They don't need to say, most people know it. But if you listen to his interview yes that is what he states, the SS and the military decide when to leave and how that egress will be made." These are all things you said in response to the idea of Bush getting up out of his seat and/or excusing himself from the classroom. So yes you did say as much. If you believe the choice to remain seated was voluntary, then fine.. But why are you bringing the secret service into it then? If they've not got a say whether or not he may get up out of his seat?
Sure you do: "policy[Adspol·i·cy1    /ˈpɒləsi/ Show Spelled[pol-uh-see] Show IPA noun, plural -cies. 1. a definite course of action adopted for the sake of expediency, facility, etc.: We have a new company policy. 2. a course of action adopted and pursued by a government, ruler, political party, etc.: our nation's foreign policy. 3. action or procedure conforming to or considered with reference to prudence or expediency: It was good policy to consent. 4. sagacity; shrewdness: Showing great policy, he pitted his enemies against one another. 5. Rare . government; polity." -dictionary.com As you can CLEARLY see, the word policy means ONLY the course of action, action or procedure... It's not a big deal.. You just picked the wrong word.. It happens.. All you had to say, was the "objective" or the "goal" or the "ambition" of the Bush Jr. government and its predecessor were the same; you would have been more or less correct. The policy of how to do it however, were as different as night and day... Using domestic rebels is the proxy method, Bush's invasion method was a hands-on approach. No and I never said he did.. Again the desire and goal of removing Saddam didn't start with the Bush Jr. presidency and this is like the third time I'm having to tell you I DON'T dispute you on that.. I only dispute that his "policy" on Saddam was different.. Bombing and starving Iraq is a different policy to invading Iraq. Jr. CAN mean same name.. It doesn't HAVE TO, as there's other definitions and applications of the term.. Jr. in this case is means "the younger Bush president", or the son in the father son relationship.. It is merely a colloquial indicator to clarify which Bush president I'm referring to as it's ambiguous to just say Bush. I'm not saying it's his "official name", no more than you think "Bush41" is George H.W's name. You added a number to distinguish which of the two Bushe's you were referring to, my use of the Jr. prefix is only doing the EXACT same thing. It's not a rhetorical slam, it's simple specification so you know which Bush I mean... Now you need to at least check your dictionary before you start challenging people to word games. "Definition of JUNIOR 1a (1) : a person who is younger than another <a man six years my junior> (2) : a male child : son (3) : a young person " As you can see the usage for this definition clearly means to indicate a son, or someone younger, NOT that they have the exact same name, which is another definition altogether. Why the red herring? You gave him no condemnation for his terrorism and WMD usage and you further allowed WMD materials into his country. Regardless the Iran/Iraq war, why were you always shaking his hand and buddying up to him? Bush41? That's not his name.. His name is George Herbert Walker Bush. Yes we at least agree on something.. All three of those presidents made war against Iraq. Each took a different approach.. Bush Jr's was the successful policy in the end.
We didn't allow weapons before and no I'm sure they could have found another way. In catching them and stopping them look at what we do now, do I believe for a second those measures could have been put on place by Clinton or Bush before the attack? No. He was doing one thing that could have helped had we had the time and that was repeal the wall the Clinton administration put between the FBI and the CIA and other intelligence gathering we had so that the intelligence services and domestic law enforcement could better communicate. The report suggesting that landed on his desk the day before the attack. Restrictions on wire taps, restrictions on detaining terrorist suspects, restrictions on the law enforcement and intelligence agencies from coordinating. Are you really so unaware of the hearings that occurred afterwards, their findings which resulted in the Homeland Security Act and the Patriot Act? It would have wouldn't. We could have stopped it by grounding all flights before the attack. So did we have actionable intelligence to do that? I guess we could have just shut things down 10 years ago when we first heard UBL wanted to use planes to attack the US. That WOULD have stopped it. But what you don't seem to understand that are things we simply can't do. And no investigation showed that there was any action we could have taken at the time to stop it. Even Richard Clarke stated so in his testimony when asked had all the things he recommended upon Bush taking office been put in place would it have stopped the attack. And he said no, it was too far along to stop at that point. They are totally relevant they are the same warnings we had had for years. But we had no details, no when and where and who. And no I am under obligation to prove to you that UBL and al Qaeda had wanted to conduct attacks on the US for the previous ten years, they were actively doing so and had already attacked us on our own soil. So you are ignorant of that fact too? You really don't know much about 9/11 do you. I get the impression you don't live here and are not a citizen. You don't need to know when someone will strike if you find out who will strike.. Capture these two future hijackers and ask THEM when they plan to strike and where. T DUH, the legal restrictions I already mentioned which you seem to believe didn't exist but now you cite it. You REALLY don't know much about this and US law at the time. Do you know who Jamie Gorelick is and her role in the matter when she served in the Clinton administration? He had already struck inside the United States and aircraft have always been a favorite tool of terrorist. No I am under no obligation to prove common knowledge. ROFL he was the star witness in the congressional hearings. So you never read the 9/11 report and did not listen to his testimony? GORTON: Now, since my yellow light is on, at this point my final question will be this: Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25th of 2001, based on Delenda, based on Blue Sky, including aid to the Northern Alliance, which had been an agenda item at this point for two and a half years without any action, assuming that there had been more Predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that that had all been adopted say on January 26th, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11? CLARKE: No. You really need to read up on some facts about 9/11. And what you are totally ignorant of is that Bush wasn't issuing orders, the WH wasn't issuing orders, it is an automatic response. We never had a chance to shoot any of them down, PERIOD. There was all kinds of confusion but there was nothing for Bush to order other than take out any plane not communicating with ground control. Yes it is they even show pictures of the room they set up with the single TV they had in the back while they prepared him to move. Yes while his security got extra security to the airfield, while they planned how they would get him there and then where they would go. Watch the interview and stop pretending otherwise, but where do you get the idea it is the President issuing the operational orders? Nothing more than he did but I sure be he wished the story would have ended sooner so he would have to be beleaguered with such inane speculation about it. Not when it involves second guessing them. No one could have stopped him, but his chief of staff did not come running up telling him they were ready to move let's go did he.
That's great but at least respond to what I said instead of saying these random things instead... You just shot yourself in the foot there.. You just conceded: "He had... halted production of WMD".... Yep.. Exactly. The pre war lies were claiming, he was CONTINUING on ACTIVE wmd programs and there was no doubt about it. This argument should be over now! Had possessed, yeah past tense, like the 80's.. Wanted to possess.. Future tense.. Later.. Where is the evidence of his CURRENT (2003) possession of "some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.. Not past ownership, not future desires, but that he had them then and there? Also let me ask you, what was the MOST lethal weapon of his you dug up after you invaded? Ready, willing and able.. But not ACTUALLY producing them.. You know like what was claimed in these Bush lies. The fact they degraded is of the UTMOST importance.. You and your leaders were arguing THREAT, that he posed a THREAT with these weapons.. Defunct and antiquated mustard gas that doesn't even work anymore doesn't count as posing a "threat". More straw man.. I NEVER claimed what was or wasn't known beyond a doubt... The president you are defending, and you, are the one's to claim a lack of doubt on the topic.. NOT me.. The BIGGEST and most prevelant conception of Saddam and WMD's in the years leading up to the invasion was uncertainty. That's when possibility and probability meet doubt.. The middle ground most of the world actually exists in. Which ones? Again, I've made no such claim.. YOU and BUSH are the one's claiming what "everyone" is "convinced" about regarding these WMD's.. I'm saying it's a mixed bag.. Beliefs about a possibility of WMD's MIXED with doubts and skepticism. THAT was the real intelligence picture.. Some for the case, and some against it.. I never claimed everyone was against the case about WMD's, rather Bush and you claim everyone was for the case. Because believing something is possible is NOT the same thing as believing something is DEFINATILY true.. Hence the word "may".. As in maybe, maybe not. As in uncertainty (the oppositte of "no doubt") I NEVER disputed or denied the speculation, and belief in possibility, even probability about Saddam having dangerous weapons made throughout the political world and intelligence fields around the world.. I'm just not saying that you and Bush are lying when you claim how definatily sure they were. Belief something is possible is DIFFERENT than absolute certainty. The sooner you get your head round this distinction, the sooner you'll understand where you've gone wrong. And? Where's Blix saying he knows for a fact Saddam has these weapons? He's just saying Baghdad didn't provide him evidence to prove otherwise... Seriously show me Blix saying (in contradiction to his other statements) "I know Saddam has these WMD's and I'm determined to find them." which is essentially what you ascribed him as saying. Who claims this? And how is it proof? Saddam's being cooperative or not isn't the debate.. No your position on his attempted purchase of yellow cake WAS based on that phony document. But go ahead... If not the phony doc, tell me what the yellow cake claim WAS based on then. When did I ever say you did claim the deal went through? The claim about the ATTEMPTED purchase of uranium from Niger was based on that phony document. So know, you don't KNOW he was seeking to purchase yellow cake.. The ONLY indication of this is that document long since (and previously) exposed as fraud.. If you've got another indicator besides that refuted document, by all means present the evidence. This will be news for me! I never said any such claims about the UN claiming he was in compliance.. What I said was YOU show me where Blix said he had no doubt about Saddam's WMD's. You are only focusing on another issue together.. We were NOT debating Saddams compliance or lack thereof.. If so, your quote would have been relevant.. We were debating the certainty in belief about possession of WMD's and even an active nuclear program. Show where Blix states such a belief NOT about Saddam's compliance or lack of, but about how he knows for a fact he's got these dangerous weapons. Once again, red herring.. I'm not denying Blix' desire to do his job.. I already said this myself, he wanted MORE time to do his job and have a look before USA starts dropping bombs. He was denied this. The point of contention here is about your claims about his belief about Saddam and what kind of WMD's and WMD programs he was convinced beyond doubt that he had. I asked you before but you've not answered, like most questions I ask you. Had this invasion never happened, knowing what you know now, what is the BIGGEST and MEANEST way Saddam could have possibly hurt you, had you not quashed him as you did. You don't know what we did find and what we did learn after his removal? I've cited just a short list already in this thread. What weapons? The old mustard gas relics from the 80's? NONE of these are weapons... The only weapons you listed are the 53 munitions (of what)? So I'll ask you again, name the actual, physical, WMD's that you found... Not heresay reports about how Saddam wanted WMD's, just tell me what, actual, real, physical, weapons that you found. Just name the MOST lethal weapon that you found in Iraq.
Yes our policy our official course of action was removal of Saddam Hussien. You're the one trying to make it one not me. You are trying to make a distinction without merit. The ILA spells out the reasons for this policy quite clearly. Nothing changed when Bush took office. The reasons it was our policy remained. And spellling out the reasons it shall be our policy to seek the removal of Saddam, it didn't originate with Bush, he just succeeded at doing it. Yes the first failed to accomplish the goals of the policy the second succeeded. Yep and he succeeded where others failed. When you use it at the end of someone's name it does. Tell me why do you think you have to engage in such rhetoric? , Yeah sure. Huh? What red herring? We weren't, but are you suggesting we should have removed him earlier? Generally in debate forum's referred to as Bush 41 and George Walker Bush as Bush43 to differentiate the two terms.
When debating, I try to follow your arguments through to their logical conclusion.. Which is perfectly reasonable and what you do.. It's called logic. You present an argument then you explain it, it's possibility etc. But I can't have a debate with you if you don't answer the questions.. This suggests a copout, because answering such questions shows your arguments going elsewhere. What I'll do is bold every question here that I've already asked you before and you didn't answer.. If you refuse to answer questions there's no point here. False... Whistleblower Bogdan Dzakovic from the FAA claimed his team undercover tested airport security, and got weapons on board 90% of the time.. They flagged it for officials to sort out in an official warning about how easy it is to get weapons on planes.. He claims the warnings were ignored and suppressed. Here you have an opportunity to sort out the problems in security identified BEFORE they could lead to deaths, but didn't. WHAT other way? HOW do you hijack four aircraft with no weapons? Why not? WHO did the report? What "wall"? Identify the specific law, protocol, directive etc. Cite the restrictions please.. Name the statute or code or directive that would have stopped them getting a warrant and searching that laptop, or would have precluded them beafing up airport security, or would have stopped them investigating two known terrorists in flight school. Just stick to mentioning the specific things which back up your arguments. STRAW MAN.. I already told you, nobody suggested doing THAT. First of all you lied.. He just said no... The too far along bit is your added words... He was asked about the things HE recommended stopping 9/11, NOT about other things besides that being able to stop it, of which he didn't render such an opinion. Moreover, he said otherwise, they maybe could have stopped it, as well.. So at the very least such contradiction screws his credibility then, as he said two oppositte things, which one is it? So he's not a good source then. Last but not least, Richard Clarke YES is a valuable witness. He is NOT an investigation. You claimed every INVESTIGATION officially sanctioned came to the conclusion of a completely unpreventable 9/11 attack.. So cite the findings from an investigation which claim this. Not a single guy, an investigation, as this is what you claimed. Lie.. You had SEVERAL "who"'s... You didn't pursue them... I identified by name the three terrorist "who's" the authorities knew about. You've provided nothing to refute their potential investigative value. Changing focus again... I'm not saying that OBL and AQ weren't seen as threats previously.. I am talking about the magnitude and frequency of these warnings, you claim was consistent across the decade... You claimed other warnings were just like the August 6 PDF so NAME ONE. You've not cited a SINGLE "legal restriction".. You've claimed their existence in the vaguest of terms but not specifically identified any. You people act like it was illegal before 9/11 to execute search warrants on terror suspects and such... This is nonsense.. Cite one law or protocol saying you can't look at Moussaiu's laptop when you have probable cause overflowing out of every orafice. What I was citing was whistleblower allegations of arbitrary and intentional stifling of the investigations by higher up officials in the FBI heirarchy, NOT any actual existing protocols. Yes you are under obligation to support your argument.. You claimed the August 6 PDF wasn't comprised of unprecedented content, rather they got warnings like it all the time over the last ten years. You need to give an example of another such warning, not vague intimations that there must have been because terrorists like planes. Where's the official investigative conclusion that the 9/11 attacks were unpreventable that you claimed EVERY investigation came to? Nonsense.. You had fighters available, orders to deploy them and choose their mission actually took a long time to be made and could have easily been sooner.. Want to pick apart the timeline and have a look? Yes the commander in chief wasn't issuing orders.. That's the whole point. I've already told you specific orders he could have made and you won't demonstrate them as impossible so just repeating your shot down claims is pointless. Incomprehensible.. I ask you what does "setting up communications" entail, explain whatever delay must be there before Bush can get in the loop, and you go on about how they had a TV in the room? I wasn't asking what they had to do to get to watch telly or move Bush to a new location, I asked what they had to do in order to allow Bush to communicate with dept. heads and such. Why are you blathering on about what the SS were doing when the issue clearly is how Bush was using that time not the SS. When did I ever say that.. If anything, I'm clearly saying, the president was NOT doing this.. He was too busy wasting time. You said his chief of staff was there to advise him to remain calm and not make any sudden moves.. Admit this was wrong as Card NEVER advised him of such a thing. He didn't say let's go, nor did he say remain seated.. He simply said the country was under attack, the rest was, as I said, up to Bush.
You're still not getting it... You had two DIFFERENT courses of action. I'll make it as clear as possible.. If you still dont get it I give up: Removal of Saddam = Objective HOW you go about removing Saddam = Policy. Understand yet? The "how" aspect, i.e. the "policy" was DIFFERENT between the two governments, even though objective and rationale remained the same. Don't sit here and pretend like supporting internal revolution and invading yourself is the same course of action. Don't also pretend that policy means the same thing as goal. The word policy means the EXACT SAME THING as the word "strategy".. Check your dictionary if you don't believe me. You're the one who objected to my use of the word Jr. at the end of Bush.. You're the first guy to EVER do this.. I wonder why... It has nothing to do with the meat of the topic and is as petty as pointing out a typo. You know what is MEANT by use of the term and I've proven to you such usage is legitimate so give this one a rest. Your distraction about the Iran/Iraq war.. Mention of the idea that Saddam wasn't supported in one regard, in leue of explaining the United States clear support in other regards, e.g. allowing these WMD materials into his country and failing to condemn him for war crimes and use of WMD's. It wasn't that important.. But Bush Sr. as might as well have seeing as he already had boots on the ground there anyway. What does it matter so long as you know EXACTLY what is meant by the usage of Jr. and Sr.? Sounds like you're being pedantic to score points but you need to check your dictionary before attempting such.
Nope policy, the removal of Saddam and replacement with a Democratically elected government. A distinction without merit. They aren't the first course of action failed the second did not, the reasons for those courses of action did not change. Yes he is not a Junior. No you distracted to it with the fallacious assertion that he was an ally of ours. Originally Posted by Bluesguy View Post We didn't allow weapons before... That we didn't do a great job of catching all of them doesn't change the fact you couldn't carry them on board they had to be in your checked bags. By getting weapons on by sneaking them on, by a phony claim of a bomb on board, what is you point here? Because we of public opposition. Look at the beatings Bush took even after the 9/11 attacks for the measures he put in place. YOu REALLY think the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act would have passed before that? If so you engage in folly. I am sorry but you are just too ignorant of events and the investigations and the findings to be able to carry on a debate in this matter. I suggest you bone up on the facts and those investigations. I do not have time to educate you in the matter and do all the legwork for you. That's what it would have taken. You don't even know who Richard Clarke is do you? No we didn't have any who's who were about to attack us that we could have taken action against. We had bits of information but unless you are asserting we should have rounded up all Muslim men who were taking flying lessons.................and by the way that was all done during the Clinton administration, by the time Bush took office the plot was well on it's way. You have to have a judge issue the warrant what were the grounds for doing so? The 9/11 hearings. Go read the book. The commander in chief does not issue the operational orders. Our defenses do not wait to get those orders when we are under threat. There were no planes available to shoot them down once we determined what was occurring. Once the order granting permission to do so it was too late to stop them. Yes DUH he used the time while they made plans to move. Prove he told him it was time to move and Bush refused. No you still don't get it, the US Government determined Saddam could not be allowed to remain in power and we set out to remove him. That was 1998. The Clinton plan failed, the Bush plan did not. Now YOU show me what investigation determined that the Bush administration could have taken action to stop the attack.
HAHA You govt shills are wasting your time defending bush. The whole world knows 911 was an inside job.
Cont. We continue to find such munitions but where did I claim we found ready to go WMD and so what if we didn't? We barely search the country for them and if we had accounted for them SO WHAT? How did that make him any less dangerous. He had the materials he needed to produce as much as he wanted hidden away. That's not hearsay as I have already demonstrated in the Duelfer report. Why do you insist it was ONLY about a ready to go WMD? We found sarin, we found mustard, we found organophosphates, we found prohibited missiles, we found biological agents etc etc etc Where did you get the idea we found nothing?
Here this might help clear the matter up for you. WILSON CONTRADICTED BY SENATE 9-11 REPORT The Democrats on the US Senate Select Intelligence Committee have been reluctantly forced to conclude [a] that the Bush Administration did not have enough pre-9-11 intelligence to predict that Muslim terrorists would seize jet airliners full of passengers and crash them into landmark buildings in the United States, and that the intelligence received by the Bush people clearly and irrefutably suggested that Saddam was actively attempting to secure enriched uranium in order to produce nuclear weapons. That same intelligence suggested that Iraq already possessed a stockpile of both chemical and biological weapons. Bush, like any president with guts, acted preemptively to protect the people and the infrastructure of the United States. Furthermore, after listening to Wilson's testimony to the 9-11 Commission (based largely on the material in his book) the 9-11 Commission and the Senate Select Intelligence Committee were both forced to concede that the CIA report on Wilson's mission to Niger differed substantially from his testimony to the 9-11 Commission. Wilson's report to the CIA, according to a Chicago Sun-Times report by Bob Novak, "...did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase [yellowcake uranium]." With respect to Wilson's statement to the Washington Post about 'forged documents" involved in the alleged attempt by Iraq to buy uraniuma bombshell that is apparently in his bookWilson admitted to the 9-11 Committee that he may have exaggerated. The 9-11 Committee found conclusively that Iraq was attempting to procure enriched (yellowcake) uranium in Africa. http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon49.htm
You argued it vehemently.. First I said: "The CIA, the IAEA, intelligence agencies from other respectable countries ALL claimed that things like active nuclear weapons programs and biologicial weapons labs currently in operation were NOT verified true beyond doubt." Then you said: "They were beyond any reasonable doubt and we found the evidence of them after we removed him." Really? So we found evidence proving that Bush wasn't lying about an active nuclear weapons program and biological weapons CURRENTLY in use? Of course we have not. You can only cite defunct old relics from the 80's. Then in refuting the "no doubt" lie, I said: "..but as far as the real claims go, like the bio weapons and nuclear weapons programs currently active, there was LOADS of doubt." You said: "...They were beyond any reasonable doubt and we found the evidence of them after we removed him..." What evidence of biological weapons did you find? So what if we didn't??? YOU brought up what you found in post-invasion Iraq as YOUR argument about the veracity of U.S. claims made prior to the invasion.. So if you DON'T have such things, then there goes THAT argument of yours straight out the window, and you'd better find something else that refutes the DOUBT among the intelligence community about things Bush claimed intelligence had "no doubt" about. Really? You know for 100% solid irrefutable no doubt fact that "the most lethal weapons ever devised" were in Iraq, but you don't bother looking for them so they can be secured in a country filling up with legions of foreign terrorists and insurgent fighters, some of which are extremist? What a hoot! Why are you shifting the burden of proof? It's not up to me to prove him less dangerous, it's up to YOU to prove how dangerous he was. You have YET to specify the biggest most damaging way Saddam could have hurt you had you not invaded, even knowing all the post invasion discoveries you claim PROVED he did indeed pose danger... I even asked it twice before. We all know why you won't answer.. You're looking at cobweb covered mustard bomb duds, a few artillary shells and little else, and you're at a loss to figure out HOW those things were going to hurt you on the other side of the world. Thus you don't answer the question, but insodoing fail to support your argument that retrospect proved the threats weren't really exaggerated. As much WHAT as he wanted? I sense bs here. Please if you do answer this question, don't be vague as usual... Tell me specifically the weapon(s) you argue he had the capability to mass produce as much as he wanted. Fair enough.. I accept that the Duelfer report did illustrate Saddam having somewhat of a desire towards WMD's, however you brought it up as evidence of what you found (the ONLY evidence you've brought so far as to what you found) and this report ONLY cites: "Iraq destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile in 1991, and only a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions were discovered by the ISG." In other words, you've found nothing but useless artifacts, no viable WMD's, no active WMD programs, and NO threat to your country. Also, this report has conclusions which completely prove both you and Bush as full of it: "Saddam's regime abandoned its biological weapons program and its ambition to obtain advanced biological weapons in 1995. While it could have re-established an elementary BW program within weeks, ISG discovered no indications it was pursuing such a course." Also: "Saddam ended his nuclear program in 1991. ISG found no evidence of concerted efforts to restart the program, and Iraq’s ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after 1991." Thanks for bringing up this report.. It helps expose how full of it Bush was. Because that is what was claimed, and is being argued by you was NOT a lie.. Again, the claim is that Saddam CURRENTLY possessed "some of the most lethal weapons ever devised" and there was bulletproof evidence of it and no doubt about it. That is NOT about desire to have weapons in the future, nor is it about weapons he had in the past, which are defunct and CERTAINLY not even a bit "lethal" anymore. Remember, a LOT of things were claimed by the Bush admin. so to disprove all the lies, this WILL be about ready to go WMD.. It will also be about an active nuclear weapons program, biological weapons laboratories and international consensus among the intelligence community about such issues. Yes, you found a small handful of DEGRADED weapons from before the PG war I. I specifically asked you what is the MOST lethal thing you found in Iraq.. Your answer is no longer viable rusted out canisters of chemical weapons from the 80's. So how was Saddam going to hurt you? Throw the canisters at your head? This term describes things both dangerous and not, both chemical weapons capable and not.. Surely you can't claim insecticides as proving anything.. There's not a country on Earth you won't find organophosphates.... So you'll have to be specific here, and tell me exactly what organophosphates you found. Not even a WMD.. What was the range on those missiles that threatened continental United States? Same as above.. Too vague.. Specify the biological agents you're referring to. Yes you'd better put some excetera on top of that because your list is nothing. You didn't find "nothing" per se, you found nothing that supports all of the claims made by the United States and Bush prior to the war.
Are you joking? As might as well cite prisonplanet.com. If you argue that these are the conclusions made by these investigations, then cite the words of the investigations themselves, not the words of some blogger. I checked out some of his other stuff, also warped, ergo I don't trust his paraphrasing too much.
It's the distinction made by the dictionary... Revise the English language all you want, the fact remains that the word policy means a plan of action. Not what you're going to do, but how you're going to do it. Didn't say the reason changed.. "reason" is not what the word policy means, however. You JUST admitted they were two DIFFERENT "course of action"s.. Now go look up "policy" in your dictionary.. What do you find? Oh yeah: "course of action". Tell you what... Cite the definition of policy you think works for what you're saying.. Dig deep. The Clinton plan failed, the Bush plan did not... You say it like it's two separate plans... But wait, you were just arguing it's the SAME policy/plan. He's a son.. He's a junior.. Already showed you the legitamite definition I was using.. Something you can't do for another word. Ok so you were neutral then? Just a question... Why didn't the United States condemn Saddam's chemical weapons attack on innocent villaigers? "Plastic knives and boxcutters" (i.e. the principal weapons used by the hijackers according to the official story) were NOT prohibited from being brough on planes by the FAA before 9/11... Do some homework. But they still get smuggled past due to security vulnerabilities, weak spots which were identified BEFORE 9/11 and were supposed to be sorted out, but they didn't; they waited till some people died. I asked you how you hijack planes without weapons and your response is by having weapons.. Don't think you read it properly... The point is, had security been improved and the vulnerabilities in security sorted out, as FAA personnel had implored them to do, then maybe, just maybe, this could have been prevented... Again they said they had an easy time getting both bombs and guns onboard, the vast majority of the time. Small blades were allowed, were they not, perhaps a different story.. How about not letting known terrorists fly at all? People try to pretend like these hijackers were just normal guys being incognito and suddenly they just sprang up out of the woodwork and did something evil, when in actuality, many of them, including Mohammed Atta, were KNOWN terrorists, and even knowing they were attending flight school, and/or under surveillance of the FBI or other law enforcement or intelligence agencies. If that's not a good enough lead I don't know what is. Bush didn't receive beatings for apprehending and interrogating known terrorist suspects with probable cause... He got beatings for rounding up people not caring if there was probable cause, going OUTSIDE the law by indefinate detention without trial, tortured them, or made them disappear, and started two costly wars... THAT is why Bush got beatings.. Can't be compared to the FBI detaining terror suspects and questioning them, as was ROUTINE before 9/11. No I don't really think that which is why I didn't argue it.. I never suggested that as one of my means of protection.. The country and the congress had to be well and truly scared before such unconstitutional crap could have gone through. That's more words than just telling me who did the report.. Come on.. Stop arguing in the vaguest of terms... I'm thinking you don't know anything about this report yourself. That's not what I'm asking for.. I'm asking you to clarify your vague arguments and provide support for them.. I know who he is.. He's the guy whose opinions you're misrepresenting over the www... You ommitted from your reply that bit about how he argued the attacks COULD have been prevented. YOU brought up a witness claiming he said the attacks couldn't be prevented, yet I have public record of him stating the attacks COULD have been prevented, and you don't think that's problematic? I told you THREE separate "who's" and you failed to show why you couldn't have taken action against them. Yes it was the judge who can order it, but it was FBI higher ups who denied the requests.. FBI agents working the case BEGGED to search that laptop. He was identified by foreign intelligence as a terrorist, he was going to flight school and he was arrested with two knives, a flight simulator and a Boeing 747 flight manual, in addition to that computer. Not enough probable cause? Don't think so. Go quote the conclusion. Nonsense.. The commander in chief has every right to issue operational orders. And there WERE planes, two in the sky for rerouting and two at Langley. In fact, fighter pilots have testified that they were READY to fly, WANTED to fly, chomping at the bit to defend the country, yet sat on the tarmac, awaiting orders to take off. You mean wasted the time. I never claimed he told him it was time to move. YOU claimed he advised him to sit there and project calm.. He did NOT say that.. I said ALL he said to Bush was the country was under attack.. This is both Card's and Bush's recollection. First of all I never used findings of an investigation to support my argument.. You did.. So YOU need to quote such investigative findings. But I will share this, here's Kean, the main guy at the 9/11 commission: "As you read the report, you're going to have a pretty clear idea what wasn't done and what should have been done. This was not something that had to happen. ...There are people that, if I was doing the job, would certainly not be in the position they were in at that time because they failed. They simply failed." This is much like what U.S. Director of National Intelligence, Michael McConnell said: "9/11 should have and could have been prevented. It was an issue of connecting information that was available"
...... 1) It would be easier to ask "What did Bush do RIGHT that day?" He read "My Pet Goat" very well to the kids at the school that morning. After being told what had happened, Bush just sat there waiting for his handlers to come get him. He was put an a plane and flown around the country while people threw themselves off Tower 1 because there was no rescue. 2) Earlier, Richard Clarke had traveled to Texas where Bush was vacationing and warned him of the impending disaster, that it was all over the intelligence of many countries, that somethign was going to happen...and Bush answered: "Now that you have covered your azz, you can go back" and just dismissed Clarke. Also, 'coincidentally' that same day was "War Games Day" which was run by VP Cheney. He had ample time to stop those four planes from incurring that damage to America. Where was NORAD that day? Where was GW Bush, our president, that day? What was John O'Niel, FBI Agent doing in building 2? He had been saying for months that there was an impending plane hijacking into a high NY building! He died running into Building 1 trying to help people. Ex-president Bush never had any regard for the lives of people, was a complete sociopath, who used 9/11 politically to invade 2 countries and was on the verge of invading a third (Iran) as he left office. Remember him golfing as people drowned in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, again waiting for rescue? In the ensuing investigation why did President Bush refuse to go in without VP Cheney by his side? It was a stacked investigation committee, yet Bush was still afraid to act responsibly in his capacity as president in this matter.
Wasn't the book upside down? Anyway you're right; Bush did seem to be good with the kids that day and made a fun morning for those kids, and made them calm and not scared, in these objectives Bush did really well. NORAD was there, so was the FAA, they needed just a bit of coordination... Which is what leaders do. The official story is that the one hand didn't know what the other was doing and all that, all just compartmentalized people and departments doing their own things, but in reality you have a heirarchy, where both hands know what each other are doing as controlled by the same brain. The inexplicable lack of leadership has seemed to cause people to think that military leaders going AWOL and agency department heads are to be in control while isolated is like the normal way things work but it's not. You're barking up almost the right tree here, but not quite.. Cheney appears to be the highest ranking guy calling shots during the critical moments, however he's the vice president and not really part of the military chain of command. This attack should have first and foremost captured the attention of the commander in chief and the secretary of defense, the top two in the chain of command... People didn't even know where Rumsfeld was... He was "out of the loop" as he put it. Hiding in his office, unreachable. He didn't seem to care about his country being attacked. Has anyone heard the term "dereliction of duty"? While no doubt an opportunity to save lives was missed, not necessarily in NY.. Assuming the exact time or target of the attack not being known, by the time it was figured out the attack was underway and aircraft were hijacked, collissions with the WTC occurred soon after.. These two would be like the suckerpunch blows; I'm not really that convinced they could have done anything about it in the timeframe, based on my research of the timeline. AFTER this however, is when you have less excuses, the additional 30 minutes or so was indeed ample time to save lives at the Pentagon either by common sense evacuations and/or fighter intercept. THIS is the time period where the official story unravels, where the lack of protection and leadership is unexplained. People see the TOP TWO officials in their military chain of command NOT acting in concern for a real time attack occurring against their country, just wasting time, that WHILE the attacks were occuring, in real time, the top two military leaders know about it, the top two military leaders don't do anything, and people actually think that's normal?!??! The way we could expect things to happen? Again, being commander in chief, i.e. leading the military to what it's supposed to do (defend and protect the people) is Bush's role per the constitution... Reading to kids and holding a press conference is NOT his duty.. Like Rumsfeld who finally emerged from under his desk when the Pentagon was hit and ran out to help lift stretchers which obviously needed no help lifting, just for a photo-op, the top two positions of your military command decided to do DIFFERENT jobs than they were supposed to. Bush doing PR and Rummy playing pretend EMT after hiding in his office. Nobody else wonders about their military leadership during a time of attack?
Yes we found his labs, his research, his proscribed items, he precursor chemicals, his reference strains of biological agents. We never account for the ready to WMD UNSCOM had cataloged and was in the process of destroying before they were forced out. And the 90's that he had hidden from inspectors and had degraded as they were not stored properly. Why do you assert that WMD made in the 80's were not WMD? There was little doubt but so what, he clearly planned to ramp them back up after the sanctions were lifted. Have you never read the ISG reports? We found evidence of his attempts to weaponize anthrax, reference strains to biological agents, experiments on disperals methods that could be used to assinate people or cause mass deaths, Have you never read the ISG reports? Why do you assert we didn't look for them? You have YET to specify the biggest most damaging way Saddam could have hurt you had you not invaded, even knowing all the post invasion discoveries you claim PROVED he did indeed pose danger... I even asked it twice before.[/QUOTE] There was no singular threat. Hidden from inspectors, yes he was in violation for not disclosing them, that he had hidden them and they don't store very well is on no matter. We also found his empty shells and the chemicals needed to fill them either in the high concentrated states they were in, deadly in their current concentrations, and which he could have produced even more deadly CWMD. A variety of nerve gases a varity of biological agents and left to his own nuclear. Somewhat? It was a passion and as we established in 1998 one he would never give up. You lost this argument in 1998 and then again in 2003. The ONLY thing we did not find were ready to go WMD (although the large cache's or organphosphates hidden away were deadly on their own), we found the ones he had hidden from inspection and had degraded in the process, but he was capable of, and the desire to, had the proscribed materials need to simple make more. We could not allow that to happen. Tell me what was your plan to remove Saddam from power and deal with the threat he posed? Here was the situtation we faced, what was your plan to deal with it. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg195sgzXhU"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg195sgzXhU[/ame]
Actully no which is why I asked you specifically what he did wrong. You can;t even get that straight..................he was reading the book the teacher was. I hope you watched the FOX news coverage where they detailed the response that day. The NORAD commanders were quite clear, there was never a chance to shoot down any of the planes, they didn't even know for sure which ones were the hijacked ones and had they made it at the last minute, would they have shot it down over the metropolitan area surround DC? Opening the possibility of it crashing into a school full of children?
Prove.. Name the "biological weapons laboratories" currently in operation that you found. Prove it, again.. You've yet to even specify which "biological agents". Because they pose no "threat" in their degraded state. I'm interested in weapons which posed a threat, as was the U.S. claim that Saddam had. Little doubt? So then "no doubt" would be a lie then, wouldn't it be? So what?? It was claimed that he CURRENTLY had such programs.. THIS is the lie you're defending. What he may or may not have in the future is immaterial to what he CURRENTLY had which is the lies I'm referencing. Yes and I've read you and countless people before you lie about its findings. Which is why when asked to quote the report saying it, you always fall short. You said it.. In order to brush off not having found any viable weapons that posed a threat to you, you said: "We continue to find such munitions but where did I claim we found ready to go WMD and so what if we didn't? We barely search the country for them..." So it's not like you didn't find these weapons because they weren't there, rather it's because you didn't look too hard for them? So I simply asked you to explain this rationale.. The "most lethal weapons ever devised" are determined to be there beyond any doubt (so you and your leaders claim) yet you aren't going to look really hard to get them secured in a country being overrun by Muslim extremists? Good answer. Again, what he COULD have done is immaterrial when discussing what he was currently doing when addressing the veracity of claims made about what he was currently doing. NAME THEM. I fail to see the "threat" and you can't explain what Saddam could have possibly done that threatens me.. I could understand why the Kurds or even Iran might feel threatened. You didn't find an active nuclear program.. You didn't find biological weapons labs.. And you didn't find ready to go WMD's.. There are no evidence to indicate Saddam had these as of 2003.. Arguing about the "future potential" of him having these things is again, immaterial when discussing claims about him CURRENTLY having them.
Not they weren't and even if they had caught up to them to shoot them down over populated areas more likely would have caused even more deaths. NORAD was not set up to shoot down commercial jets over populated areas.
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2003/david_kay_10022003.html http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/ Now your turn, prove Saddam had had a epiphany and was no longer a threat, had given up all desire to produce and use WMD and prove he was in compliance with all UN sanctions and resolutions and had disclosed everything concening WMD.
