Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clinton like a rock star. From the Toledo Blade

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
babsbunny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 11:29 AM
Original message
Clinton like a rock star. From the Toledo Blade
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/2...
OHIO FUND-RAISER

Clinton lends clout to Brown campaign N.Y. senator bashes Bush, rouses crow








By JIM TANKERSLEY
BLADE POLITICS WRITER


AUSTINTOWN, Ohio - The girls swooned for Adam Brody. The banners plugged Sherrod Brown. But the nearly 1,000 people in the Fitch High School auditorium yesterday saved their longest, loudest ovations for the woman who has become the Ohio Democratic Party's most lucrative warm-up act.

Hillary Clinton had them on their feet before word No. 1. In the middle of sentence No. 2, she drew her first "Hillary for president!" shout, which, like all the rest, she ignored.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
1. This is the kind of voter behavior which
makes US politics a joke nowadays.

I don't want rock stars in the government but people who know when to invade a country and when not to invade a country. Hillary Clinton is certainly not in that category.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. THe other behavior that problematic
Democrats supporting Republican attacks on our parties leaders. I don't remember Hillary ordering the invasion of Iraq, must have missed that. Have you got a lnk?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. She was in the Senate and she knew
what Bush wanted to do. It was her responsibility -- just like that of every other senator -- to evaluate the consequences if that resolution is passed. Hillary didn't care. All she was concerned about was her image as "strong on defense" - whatever that means.
I cannot find the article anymore, it was on Huffingtonpost, which quoted Hillary telling a donor in Hollywood that she was against the war but she had to vote for the resolution because noone would vote for a woman as president if she is perceived as weak on defense. Well, that's in a nutshell why Hillary should never ever get close to the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Ever heard of UN inspections? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Yes. And did you read that resolution?
It was a blank check for war. Nothing less. It had nothing to do with the inspections. The history of the neocons around Bush was well known. They wanted to invade Iraq, no matter what. The only thing that could have stopped them was the Senate.
Gore understood that. Dean understood that. But Hillary somehow didn't? Was she really thet naive? Come on.
She did know that. She just didn't care. She wanted to look "strong".
Instead she looks like an opportunist second rate politician.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. "It had nothing to do with inspections"
Thats just bullshit my friend. It had everything to do with inspections, it was a threat to use force if Sadaam did not comply with them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Bullshit. The resolution did not say anything
Edited on Sun Oct-08-06 01:18 PM by silko
about keeping the inspections until Blix and Elbaradei finish their job. Nothing. It told Bush : you can do whatever you want whenever you want. The language of the resolution was designed by the White House. They knew exactly what wording they needed to go to war.

When the resolution was passed the inspections were already going on. It's not that Saddam let them in because of that. And Bush already made up his mind that Saddam could not do anything to avoid a war. So all they needed was a blank check from the Senate. If Hillary didn't understand that she was a dumbass. If she understood that but still voted for the resolution then she is an opportunist. Which is better?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Ever heard of UN resolutions? n/t

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Yes, this resolution authorized Bush
Edited on Sun Oct-08-06 02:08 PM by silko
to use force to "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq".
What the hell do you think that meant? More inspections?


1441 had that little "serious consequences" phrase which Bush interpreted as war, nothing less. This is precisely why they wanted that phrase in 1441. Then came the congressional resolution which didn't force Bush to go back to the UN to get another resolution that explicitely authorized war against Iraq, it didn't demand that the inspections be finished before Bush can start a war. It authorized Bush to use force whenever he wanted, regardless of what the security council or the inspectors thought about that.

At the time of the resolution the deployment was well underway. Hillary knew that (or if she didn't she is dumb like rock) but she still voted for that it, and now that the war turned out to be a disaster she says that she was misled by Bush and that she didn't think Bush would just pull the inspectors out and go to war. That's the mother of all spins, and you know that.
It was a disgusting opportunist reckless move by Hillary and now she wants to shift the full blame to Bush.

But we have a White House and we have a Congress. And without the Congress the White House cannot send 150,000 troops to invade and occupy another country. If Hillary is still unable to understand her share of responsibility why on earth should any reasonable person consider her a serious presidential candidate?
Because she is a "rock star"? If I wanted a rock star in the Oval Office I would vote for Jon Bon Jovi. At least he opposed the war from the beginning.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Iraq's resistance/blocking of Inspections
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02...

2002

In his January State of the Union address, President George W. Bush labels Iraq a member of an axis of evil, along with Iran and North Korea. The presidents speech is the first of many statements by top US officials on the dangers posed by Iraq, many of which question the ultimate worth of arms inspections and advocate the overthrow of Saddam Hussein as the only way to guarantee that Iraq will not develop weapons of mass destruction in the future.

Less than two months after Bushs speech, Iraqi officials meet with Secretary-general Annan and UNMOVIC Executive Chairman Blix to discuss arms inspections for the first time since 1998. UN officials fail to win the return of inspectors at this meeting or two subsequent ones that occur in May and July.

On September 12, amid increasing speculation that the United States is preparing to invade Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein, President Bush delivers a speech to the United Nations calling on the organization to enforce its resolutions for disarming Iraq. Bush strongly implies that if the United Nations does not act, the United States willa message that US officials make more explicit the following week.

Four days later, Baghdad announces that it will allow arms inspectors to return without conditions. Iraqi and UN officials meet September 17 to discuss the logistical arrangements for the return of inspectors and announce that final arrangements will be made at a meeting scheduled for the end of the month. The United States contends that there is nothing to talk about and warns that the Iraqis are simply stalling. The Bush administration continues to press the Security Council to approve a new UN resolution calling for Iraq to give weapons inspectors unfettered access and authorizing the use of force if Iraq does not comply.

____________________________________

Obviously it was the strong US position that got the Inspectors back in. And your mind reading of the President is not a universal gift. There are plenty of public statements on record that he wouldn't invade unless Iraq continued non-compliance with UN resolutions.

The history of inspections and open issues is summarized at the link above.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. The inspectors were already back when the congressional
Edited on Sun Oct-08-06 02:45 PM by silko
resolution was passed.

"There are plenty of public statements on record that he wouldn't invade unless Iraq continued non-compliance with UN resolutions."

That itself would have been a bullshit argument as Saddam was violating UN resolutions for at least 10 years! Still that was not a reason to invade Iraq in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. So all of a sudden Hillary believed that because Iraq was in breach we had to invade it?
As Gore said the question was not that whether Saddam violated the UN resolutions or not but what was in the interest of the United States. And invading Iraq in 2003 was not in its interest. Apparently Hillary didn't care about that. Voting for the resolution was in her interest so what else matters?

Bush said that if Saddam does not disarm we will disarm him and that war was the last resort -- which was a lie, and everyone who had a functioning brain knew it was a lie. He said that while asking the Congress to give him a blank check to attack Iraq. Can you add one and one together?

The inspectors were on the ground. They did their job. Blix asked for a few more weeks to finish the job but Bush just pulled the inspectors out and thanks to that resolution he now had the power to invade Iraq.
Your claim that Bush was somehow serious about inspections and that he really didn't want a war, contradicts the accounts which proves that Bushco already made up their minds about going to war long before the congressional resolution was passed. You don't need a mind-reader to know that. Just read Dick Clarke's book, or read the Downing Street Memo.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. I made no mind reading claims
"You claim that Bush was somehow serious about inspections and that he really really didn't want a war,"

I made no statement on Bush's intentions. I don't think it was obvious what his intentions were (as we now know). I was surprised at his audacity in Feb and March and doubted he was so stupid as to invade Iraq. The day of the bombs dropping I was just walking around in a numb state and quite worried at the mess we were in. I thought maybe it would be a limited attack to try and kill Hussein, still doubting they planned an occupation.

One thing you seem to misunderstand. Bush could have bombed them and invaded with or without that Senate Resolution. As you say he had deployed forces before the resolution was signed. Presidents don't need a war resolution to carry out military operations or at least it is an unresolved question.

I think you are mistaken about the status of the inspectors in mid October. Still looking for that info.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. It was obvious that Bush wanted a war
Edited on Sun Oct-08-06 03:26 PM by silko
And if unlike Gore or Dean Hillary couldn't understand that Bush wanted to invade Iraq and that's why he wanted a blank check from the Senate she was a dumbass.
But her statement to that donor clearly shows that she knew it was about war and she voted for it because she didn't want to look weak in 2008.


No Bush couldn't have invaded Iraq without a Senate resolution. If he could have he wouldn't have asked for the resolution. But even if he could have invaded Iraq without it that does not change Hillary's responsibility. It's Congress' job to decide about war or peace, and that does not change even if the president violates the law and invades another country without the approval of the Congress.

"I think you are mistaken about the status of the inspectors in mid October."

They were not yet on the ground, but on 16 September 2002 Kofi Annan received a letter from the Iraqi Government offering to allow the unconditional return of weapons inspectors and on 1 October 2002 Hans Blix and Iraq agreed practical arrangements for the return of weapons inspectors. Bush said it was not good enough for him -- as I said Saddam couldn't have done anything to make Bush satisfied because he wanted a war. But somehow that was no obvious to you and Hillary. Get real. The Congressional resolution was passed on Oct 11.
Bush proposed the UN resolution in Sept 2002. It's language then was soften to what would become 1441 so that Bush could get a unanimous vote. You say that Hillary didn't read the draft?

Bush said that he needed that resolution to "strengthen his hand at the UN" -- which again was a lie. He couldn't care less whether the UN passed another resolution or not. He knew once Congress approves the resolution -the way the White House drafted its language - he can do whatever he wants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. "Couldn't understand" (mindread?)
Where is the administration statement that she couldn't understand? You mean she did not predict their lies? That I might accept.

The War Powers Resolution of 73 authorizes up to 60 days actually more without any authorizations.

The reality is, if Bush got enough political support from the public he could do it and count on a resolution later.

"It's Congress' job to decide about war or peace,..."

No its a shared responsibility as stated in the War Powers resolution of '73. And the Constitution has some clauses that can be interpreted to give the President wide authority to commence military action.

The Iraq statement of September to allow unconditional inspections was widely interpreted as a general statement that both parties (the UN and Iraq) would interpret differently based on past actions of Iraq. The UN and the US didn't trust Hussein to actually follow through on that statement. The meetings in November were to lay out the precise requirements and locations that could be inspected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #24
30. Not the administration statements. Those were lies.
" You mean she did not predict their lies? "

Oh poor naive Hillary. She just couldn't see the lies. How moving. Get real.

You say that Hillary believed Bush would not use the resolution to go to war.
That's bull. Because that would show that Hillary didn't understand that Bush's only goal was to invade Iraq, not to get with the inspections. But looking at that resolution and conclude that it was not a blank check for war you had to be a complete idiot. And of course Hillary is not that dumb. It was opportunism, not that poor Hillary was just misled by Bush.


"The War Powers Resolution of 73 authorizes up to 60 days actually more without any authorizations."

Yes and Bush could have invaded Iraq in 60 days, right? Come on. Stop spinning.
It was a large military operation with the goal of overthrowing a government and establishing another.
You can't do that in 60 days in a country like Iraq. Hillary knew that. And she didn't say 'well it doesn't matter how I vote because Bush could still invade Iraq anyway', right? So what's your point with this? Bush asked the Congress to approve a balck check for war. Hillary approved it. There is no exuse for that.

"The reality is, if Bush got enough political support from the public he could do it and count on a resolution later."

The reality is that most of the public wanted Bush to ask for a congressional resolution. Bush knew that he saw the polls.

"No its a shared responsibility as stated in the War Powers resolution of '73."

Actually, under the Constitution it is up for Congress to declare war.
That has changed during the Cold War as declaring wars became obsolete. But one thing has not changed: for any military operation longer than 60 days the president has to go to the Congress and ask their approval.
Which means that in practice it was up to the Congress to decide whether to go to war with Iraq or not. Without them the Bush couldn't have ordered any combat operation beyond 60 days. And the invasion of Iraq was certainly in that category. You want to say that Hillary didn't know that either?


"The Iraq statement of September to allow unconditional inspections was widely interpreted as a general statement that both parties (the UN and Iraq) would interpret differently based on past actions of Iraq."

It was not just the statement but the agreement with Blix on Oct 1. And certainly Bush interpreted that statement as not good enough, as nothing would have been good enough for him because he wanted a war.

"The UN and the US didn't trust Hussein to actually follow through on that statement. "

The US? The UN? Exactly who in the US and who in the UN?
And why does it matter whether Saddam was serious or not?
He was playing games in the 90s as well, still Clinton didn't invade Iraq, right?
Not only that he didn't ask for a black check to use force against Iraq whatever way he wanted, either.
Bush did that. But you say Hillary just didn't believe Bush would invade Iraq despite the language of the resolution and despite that he was surrounded by people who wanted to invade Iraq back in 1991. Yeah right.

"The meetings in November were to lay out the precise requirements and locations that could be inspected."

And? Why does that matter?
Saddam allowed the inspectors back to Iraq before the congressional resolution was passed. You said that it was the congressional resolution which made Saddam do that. Not true.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. Seems we are about to exhaust
any chance of agreement.

>Oh poor naive Hillary. She just couldn't see the lies. How moving. Get real.

Ok?

>You say that Hillary believed Bush would not use the resolution to go to war.

No I did not say that. Originally you asked if I had read the resolution, it seems you have not read it. Force was conditional on a determination that Iraq was continuing to be in non-compliance with UN resolutions. She did not predict that Bush would tell the inspectors to get out in March 2003 so soon after inspectors returned so he could commence bombing.

>Yes and Bush could have invaded Iraq in 60 days, right? Come on. Stop spinning.
>It was a large military operation with the goal of overthrowing a government and establishing another.
>You can't do that in 60 days in a country like Iraq. Hillary knew that. And she didn't say 'well it doesn't matter how I vote because >Bush could still invade Iraq anyway', right? So what's your point with this? Bush asked the Congress to approve a balck check for war. >Hillary approved it. There is no exuse for that.

I think you discount how much support and trust people instinctively offer the commander in chief once he launches a military operation. The polls immediately after the invasion show near 90% support for the Presidents decision. Before that the majority support was dependent on UN inspections and mutilateral support for invasion. Most people decided it was moot and the congress should stand with him to get the job done once we were in there.

The rest of your post is more interpretation that in my view differs with consensus understandings of the issues then and now. I don't care to argue those points in detail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. OK what?
So you say that Hillary just bought everything Bush said in 2002 and that's why she voted for the resolution?
If that's the case I don't want such a dumb person anywhere close to the White House.


"Force was conditional on a determination that Iraq was continuing to be in non-compliance with UN resolutions. "


For godness sake, that's precisely the point.
Just because Iraq was in breach didn't mean that we had to invade it.
Iraq was in non-compliance with UN resolutions for 10 years!
So you say that Hillary all of a sudden believed in 2002 that an invasion then would be OK if
Iraq continues to be in non-compliance?
Why the change? That's the issue. What justified to invade Iraq in 2002? What was new compared to, say, 1994 or 1996 or 1999? Nothing. So why did Hillary vote for a resolution in 2002 that gave the power to Bush to invade Iraq?

" She did not predict that Bush would tell the inspectors to get out in March 2003 so soon after inspectors returned so he could commence bombing."

Ah so she was unable to see the obvious despite the language of the resolution.
Well that's what I was talking about. If that was the case she is dumb like a rock.
But of course she knew that after that resolution Bush could do whatever he wanted.
She just didn't care.


"I think you discount how much support and trust people instinctively offer the commander in chief once he launches a military operation. "

It depends on what kind of military operation it is and how long it lasts.
Clinton started Kosovo and it didn't take long for the public to disapprove the way he was handling it.
Whatever the public would have thought after the start of the war they wanted Bush to ask for congressional approval.

But again, in terms of what Hillary was doing it's irrelevant whether Bush could have invaded Iraq without a congressional resolution. As Hillary never argued that she voted for it because it was irrelevant, Bush
had the power to invade anyway. If she had made such a statement that would undermine your argument that Hillary didn't know Bush made up his mind about going to war at the time when the resolution was passed.
You can't have it both ways.

"The polls immediately after the invasion show near 90% support for the Presidents decision. Before that the majority support was dependent on UN inspections and mutilateral support for invasion. "


Not true. After the UN rejected the second Bush proposal most Americans already agreed that the war was a good idea and that it didn't matter whether the UN approved it or not.
But it was never 90%. Show me a poll which shows that.

"Most people decided it was moot and the congress should stand with him to get the job done once we were in there."

The second UN resolution was moot not the congressional resolution. Two different things. One is done by other countries, the other is done by the US congress.
Beside the public demand for congressional approval it would have been illegal for Bush to invade Iraq without it.


"The rest of your post is more interpretation that in my view differs with consensus understandings of the issues then and now."

Consensus among who? Among the "let Hillary off the hook because she has star power" crowd?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. Are you really saying there was no
difference in political realities from the 90's to 2002? The case that was pushed on us was that Iraq was a threat of unknown dimensions unless we forced unconditional inspections. There was tremendous political pressure as a result of 9/11 to put pressure on Iraq and it was timed with an election a mere month away as you know.

"Just because Iraq was in breach didn't mean that we had to invade it."

Try this: Because Iraq impeded inspections in the past we needed to convince him he would be invaded to get unfettered access. What is hard to understand?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #37
41. The political realities are exactly what
Edited on Sun Oct-08-06 05:19 PM by silko
Hillary Clinton cared about instead of our national security. And that's precisely why she should not be allowed anywhere close to the White House. You do not support a war just because poll shows that if you oppose it you'll be perceived as weak. If you do that you are an opportunist, just like Hillary.


"The case that was pushed on us was that Iraq was a threat of unknown dimensions unless we forced unconditional inspections. "

No, the case was pushed on us that unless we overthrown Saddam with force we will see a mushroom cloud in New York. That was Bush's case. And you say that Hillary bought it hook, line, and sinker.
Political pressure is not a reason to support such a nonsense. But Hillary did because she is an opportunist not a serious policymaker.


" Because Iraq impeded inspections in the past we needed to convince him he would be invaded to get unfettered access. What is hard to understand?"

Then why didn't Hillary propose that the resolution had to include that Bush cannot use force until the inspectors themselves declare that they cannot do their job due to Saddam's games?

And why did we have to do that all of a sudden in 2002, anyway? Containment worked.
And Clinton knew that as she didn't run around the country even in 2001 after 9/11 that we had to convince Saddam he would be invaded to get unfettered access otherwise he will attack us with anthrax. No, she only started to be "very concerned" about the supposed threat from Iraq after Bush started to push his case in Sept 2002.
She then didn't have the guts to say: Iraq was no bigger threat now than it was a year ago or two years ago, there is no need for an invasion or even the threat of an invasion to contain Iraq. Instead she went along with Bush's resolution. Why if not because opportunism?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #41
46. That does not just mean polls.
It includes the opinions of our representatives. They are humans too. There is little question in my mind that she has a hawkish outlook on foreign policy and was forming her opinions based on material supplied by the administration. I do not think her votes were just for political expediency. I have had this argument with people before. They interpret the Clintons policies as only a triangulation and not supported by their own convictions. How appropriate for those people who disagree with said policies and want to attack them as unprincipled.

Political pressure can change ones views. If you debate issues on DU or with other people are you never swayed to a different view? Political pressure means there is an active debate going on. Personally I do not think it was a hard stretch for Hillary to support the President in foreign policy matters. She was in the WH and understands the seriousness of protecting the country from threats.

I do not agree with you that Bush's case prior to the vote in October was removal of Hussein regardless of the findings of inspectors.

From a Bush speech right before the vote:


Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. Among those requirements: the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under U.N. supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction. To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside the country -- and these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them so they all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder. And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.

The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

Many nations are joining us in insisting that Saddam Hussein's regime be held accountable. They are committed to defending the international security that protects the lives of both our citizens and theirs. And that's why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council seriously.

And these resolutions are clear. In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism. It must cease the persecution of its civilian population. It must stop all illicit trade outside the Oil For Food program. It must release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including an American pilot, whose fate is still unknown.

By taking these steps, and by only taking these steps, the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict. Taking these steps would also change the nature of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime will make that choice. Unfortunately, at least so far, we have little reason to expect it. And that's why two administrations -- mine and President Clinton's -- have stated that regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our nation.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/2002100...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #46
51. If political pressure can change your
Edited on Sun Oct-08-06 06:26 PM by silko
views about national security matters then you should not be considered a serious presidential candidate.


The problem with Hillary is that her views on that resolution were shaped by political calculation not by the best available evidence or logic.
When it's about the invasion of another country with more than 100,000 US troops you don't think about
politics. You think about policy. If not you have to be rejected as a candidate. Period. No exuse.

As for "material supplied by the administration" exactly what was the material which convinced Clinton that suddenly Iraq was such a big threat you have to tell Bush you can invade Iraq whenever and however you want to?
You had to be an asshole to buy that shit from Bushco. And if Hillary was not an opportunist then I don't want an asshole in the White House, either.

Yes Hillary was in the White House as a First Lady dealing with some domestic issues. That doesn't mean she has a clue about national security. She does not. If her vote in 2002 wouldn't have been bad enough she managed to assess the situation in Iraq so accurately it made Cheney look like the biggest genius of the Iraq policy. She said in 2005 that the suicide bombings indicated the insurgency was failing. Yeah right. Again, she said that to protect her ass. Not to admit that her vote was wrong. Instead she started to spin the war as if it hadn't been that bad after all. She is still playing that game. She will never say that the war was a mistake because she knows such a statement would blow up in her face.


"I do not agree with you that Bush's case prior to the vote in October was removal of Hussein regardless of the findings of inspectors."

And you try to prove that with a Bush speech? Now? When you can know for sure that he made up his mind about toppling Saddam even before that UN speech?

Bush lied through the entire period between Sept 2002 and the start of the war. And he kept lying after that as well. Saying on the one hand that the WMD intel was wrong, that's why he invaded Iraq and on the other hand that it doesn't matter whether there were WMDs or not invading Iraq was still the right decision.

Of course he wanted regime change not inspections. What do you think the DSM was all about? Why do you think Bush asked Clarke over and over again right after 9/11 whether Iraq was involved? Not Iran, not Lybia, not Syria, no Hezbollah but Iraq.

He was talking about the inspections because he knew all too well that Iraq will never accept the conditions he set. That's precisely why he didn't take the agreement between Blix and Iraq, rather he was pushing for a UN resolution that established rules like interviewing government officials outside of Iraq -- something Iraq would not agree to do no matter what.

Or take this for example:

"It must cease the persecution of its civilian population."

Now that had nothing to do with inspections or disarmament or US national security. And then Bush said
"By taking these steps, and by only taking these steps, the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict. "


Hello? It was about invasion and regime change from the beginning nothing less.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. I guess we can argue all day eh?
The link to the Bush speech was meant to show that whenever the question of had he decided to invade came up, he would always say it was conditional on Sadaam taking certain actions.

Why not read Hillary's speech on the Resolution:

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

Until the next time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. And what does it matter what Bush said? We know he lied.
What's you point with that?

That Hillary believed Bush's lies? That's what to say?

I read Hillary's speech and there is nothing there which would explain why he gave a black check to Bush.
If she didn't want to do that why didn't she propose to change the language of the resolution?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #52
55. And what does it matter what Bush said? We know he lied.
Edited on Sun Oct-08-06 06:43 PM by silko
What's you point with that?

That Hillary believed Bush's lies no matter how nonsensical there were? That's what you want to say?

I read Hillary's speech and there is nothing there which would explain why he gave a black check to Bush.
If she didn't want to do that why didn't she propose to change the language of the resolution?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #36
40. The polls
You are right it was never 90%. Its been awhile since I have looked at old polls from 2003. But Bush had approval at 70% after the invasion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. Here you have it. I found the article
Edited on Sun Oct-08-06 03:39 PM by silko
Exacerbating the problem is that, when it comes to Iraq, Hillary is telling Hollywood donors whatever they want to hear.

One major party donor, who is supporting Hillary even though he is against the war, told me that Clinton had assured him that she, too, was "against the war" but believed that there was no way a woman could ever be elected president while being against the war. "She is convinced," the donor told me, "that she'd be attacked as soft on defense and unable to deal with national security and the war on terror. And I think she's right. I'd rather she be anti-war, but I can't argue with her reasoning."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/2008-w...


End of story. She is more concerned about her damn image than about our national security -- which took a huge hit with this insane war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. I think interpretations will vary on someones "concerns".
It seems to me this conversation has as much to do with Hillary's statements since the invasion as the vote before it. The bottom line is the vote is an authorization to insure by force if necessary Iraq's compliance with UN resolutions. Any other read of it is fantasy.

Bush is clearly in violation of it and was from the minute he ordered the commencement of bombing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. Huh?
"The bottom line is the vote is an authorization to insure by force if necessary Iraq's compliance with UN resolutions. Any other read of it is fantasy."

The resolution says that if Bush determines there was no other way then he can use force against Iraq. Get it? If Bush determines. Not if necessary. That's why it was a blank check for war.

And Hillary approved a war against Iraq if Iraq violates UN resolutions?
Hello?
Saddam was violating UN resolutions throughout the 90s! Still Hillary didn't think that the US should invade Iraq. So what changed in 2002?
Nothing. It's not that Iraq all of a sudden became a bigger threat than it was in the 90s.
It's just that Hillary was afraid if she doesn't vote for it she would be seen as weak and could not get elected in 2008. It's that simple.


"Bush is clearly in violation of it and was from the minute he ordered the commencement of bombing."

No, because nowhere in the resolution can you find language which forces him to go down the diplomatic road. It left everything to Bush. If he thinks diplomacy no longer works he can invade.

We know that Bush was lying. He wanted to invade. Do you think he would have proposed any other draft which didn't give him the power to start a war? Of course not. They carefully chose the wording to ensure that he could do whatever he wanted. And Hillary apparently didn't have any problem with that because she didn't try to change the White House draft -- except taking out a provision which would have allowed Bush not only to invade Iraq but also any other country he didn't like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. My view is that inspections needed to be carried out
unconditionally to confirm that his weapons programs were shutdown and remained so. I think Democrats were in large agreement with that position and did the best they could to get an acceptable resolution to force Hussein to cooperate. In hindsight Bush's and Cheney's foolishness was underestimated.

What changed in 2002? I don't know how about in 2001? The country and its politicians were predisposed to aggressive enforcement of the UN resolutions as a result of 9/11.

I don't agree that saying who gets to determine the diplomacy route is useless totally invalidates the requirement. Bush calculated that he would have the publics support after his UN inspection charade, he calculated well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. Not in hindsight. There were people who understood
what Bush was up to. Now you say Hillary didn't understand that, which would mean she is dumb as hell.
Her statements after the war - in which she never said that invading Iraq was a mistake sensing that such a statement would invite questions about why she voted for the res. - however clearly show that she knew what the 2002 game was all about, but she still voted for the resolution because she wanted to postition herself for 2008.

"What changed in 2002? I don't know how about in 2001? The country and its politicians were predisposed to aggressive enforcement of the UN resolutions as a result of 9/11."


What changed in Iraq? 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq and its violation of the UN resolutions. The opposite was Bush's argument -- and tha too was a lie. And certain not all politicians argued that we had to look at Iraq differently because of 9/11. Every single one of them pulled that out of their collective ass. If Hillary also was among them, and really believed that somehow because of 9/11 Iraq became more dangerous than it was in the 90s then she is a complete asshole. Al Qaeda was one thing. Iraq's violation of the UN resolutions was another. And now you say that because 9/11 happened it was entirelly OK for Hillary to approve the invasion of Iraq in 2002? Bullshit. 9/11 didn't create all of a sudden a nuclear program in Iraq. It didn't make Saddam more willing or capable to attack other countries. Quite to the contrary as he saw what happened to the Taliban. It didn't create a more chembio weapons than Iraq was believed to have in the 90s.
Nothing changed in terms of the threat from Iraq after 9/11. Hillary still voted for the resolution which authorized Bush to invade Iraq. Why?

"I don't agree that saying who gets to determine the diplomacy route is useless totally invalidates the requirement."

Of course you don't agree because this kills you entire "it's not Hillary's fault" argument.
Whether Bush calculated about getting public support or not is again irrelevant in terms of what Hillary did. The resolution didn't demand from Bush to go with the inspections. It didn't say that this and that conditions have to be in place for an invasion. Instead it told Bush that it's up to him to decide whether he wants to go to war or not. That was clear language. And that's why Bush himself wanted that language. You continue to ignore that. If Hillary really believed that Bush was interested in inspections and not war why didn't she try to change the resolution which wouldn't have allowed Bush to attack before the inspectors themselves said they couldn't do their job in Iraq because of Saddam's roadblocks?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. "What changed in Iraq? "
What changed in America?

Like I said we won't be able to agree here. I do not agree that Hillary knew he would invade in Mar 2003 when she cast her vote. That Bush would shortcut the UN inpsection process that were the first weapons inspections to be done in 5 years. (since 98).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. But it was about the invasion of Iraq not America
Bush argued that Saddam had to be removed because after 9/11 we had to look at threats differently and Saddam was a grave and gathering threat.
Well, why did anyone have to look at Iraq differently after 9/11? Why did Hillary look at Iraq differently after 9/11?


"I do not agree that Hillary knew he would invade in Mar 2003 when she cast her vote."

But she sure knew that Bush wanted a resolution to use force against Iraq, right?
She also knew that under that resolution Bush could decide when and how to use force against Iraq and that he didn't have to get another UN resolution and didn't have to wait for the inspectors finishing their job before making such a decision.
If she knew that why did she approve any resolution that gave so much power to Bush?
To reject that you don't have to know that Bush would invade in March 2003. If you were a serious Senator when the White House proposed that resolution your job was to prevent Bush from getting a blank check for war. Whether that war would be started in March 2003 or or Apr 2003 or July 2003 was irrelevant.


"That Bush would shortcut the UN inpsection process that were the first weapons inspections to be done in 5 years. (since 98)."


Again, if Hillary thought Bush was so serious about inspections why didn't she try to change the resolution so that it would have forced Bush to wait until the inspectors finish their job?
Because the White House draft certainly didn't show any intention on Bush's part to consider what the inspectors were doing. Bush asked the Congress to approve the use of force against Iraq not alternative ways to disarm it.
Why didn't Hillary have any problem with the White House draft if she really wanted inspections not war?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Here is a timeline that contradicts your claim.
2002
Date United Nations Actions/

Security Council Resolution Iraqi Action Coalition Response
11 Feb UN Special Rapporteur visits Baghdad
14 May UNSC adopts RES 1409, revised 300-page Goods Review List
12 Sep UNSC begins discussion on Iraqi non-compliance with UN resolutions
17 Sep Iraq says it will permit UN weapons inspections
8 Nov UNSC adopts RES 1441 outlining provisions for enhanced weapons inspections
13 Nov Iraq accepts RES 1441
18 Nov UNMOVIC and IAEA chairman in Baghdad for technical talks

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/timeline3.ht...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. Read above
I wrote that the inspectors were already on the ground, which was wrong. What I wanted to say was that they were already allowed back to Iraq before the resolution passed.

Read your own post

17 Sep Iraq says it will permit UN weapons inspections
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #23
29. See #24. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. The IWR vote was October 2002....Iraq had allowed inspectors.
BY your timeline:

So why did they think they had to vote to give Bush such power?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. read #24 please. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #27
32. There is nothing in that post which
makes your claim that the congressional resolution was needed to have inspections credible.

Saddam agreed to let them back. Blix already agreed about the terms of the inspections.
Your spin that the UN itself was not satisfied with it and that's why the congressional resolution was necessary to force Saddam to allow inspections is baseless. Bush was not satisfied with the agreement, not the UN. But again, Bush wouldn't have been satisfied with anything Saddam had done, as he wanted and exuse to invade Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #32
35. Had Sadaam resisted inspections before?
Your argument is terribly weak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #35
43. Of course he did. Still neither Clinton nor anyone
else -other than a the neocons- wanted to invade Iraq or even threaten Iraq with an invasion because of that. With all the restrictions containment still worked for 10 years. Then all of a sudden in 2002 Bush would tell us it no longer worked. And Hillary did not challenge that.

So would you finally explain why all of a sudden Hillary thought that had to be done in 2002?
You dodge the question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #43
49. How do you verify that the inspections worked
before having unfettered access? You make a false argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #49
53. How did you verify that the inspections destoyed a bunch of WMD
in Iraq? You read the UNSCOM reports.
You knew how much Iraq produced before 1991, you knew how much UNSCOM destroyed after that. You do the math.
By 2001 the CIA's assessment was what you could hear from Powell and Rice themselves back in 2001, before 9/11. That Iraq was effectively contained and they didn't have any significant WMD capability.
Then that story changed in Sept 2002 and all of a sudden Iraq became a huge threat with an active nuclear program, mobil biolabs and UAVs ready to spray America with anthrax.


You didn't need the conditions in the 90s Bush demanded in 2002 to make sure Iraq could not make WMDs.
You had the inspectors, you had the sanctions you had the targetted bombings. It was called containment and it worked. There was no need for an invasion or the threat of an invasion to continue that policy.

"Unfettered access" according to Bush meant conditions that he knew Saddam would never accept so he would have a convenient exuse to invade the country. But those conditions were not necessary during the 90s to contain Iraq and you know that so why all this spin?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #35
45. And how did those restriction make Iraq
Edited on Sun Oct-08-06 05:50 PM by silko
suddenly a bigger threat than it was in the 90s?

And how could the inspections work in the 90s despite those restrictions?
More weapons were destroyed by inspectors than during the Gulf War.

Your point is ridiculous. Just because Saddam played games did not mean you had to give Bush a black check
for war, otherwise Saddam would attack New York City and what not.

Saddam agreed that the inspectors could go back. Why didn't Bush take it?
Because he didn't want inspections. Any kind of inspection. Restrictions or not.
He wanted to set conditions that he knew Iraq wouldn't accept and they didn't not even after
Blix and Elbaradei were already on the ground. But that didn't mean they couldn't do their job. They said they needed a few more weeks. Bush didn't give it to them because he was never serious about inspections.
And that was obvious from the language of the resolution, among other things. But somehow Hillary didn't get it, you say.
Nonsense. She got it. She just went along with the sheeple who believed if you didn't approve a war against Saddam you were weak. Soft on terror. Weak on defense. Hillary was simply afraid of these labels that's what her vote was all about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #45
50. No yours is.
Sadaam viewed inspections as something to be negotiated, thats the history, go read the reports I linked to in an earlier post.

How do you force unfettered access that you never could get before? What is the answer that no one but you can figure out? How do you know there was not more going on in Iraq in those 5 years. Hindsight is 20/20 of course, but most people believed based on Husseins past actions that we needed to get in there and have a real good look based in part on distorted intelligence reported by the Bush Administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #50
56. And what if Saddam wanted to negotiate the inspections?
Edited on Sun Oct-08-06 07:08 PM by silko
He did that during the 90s as well. Still Iraq was contained.

"How do you force unfettered access that you never could get before?"

Why in the world did you need to force those conditions with the threat of an invasion in 2002?
What has changed in 2002 compared to 2001 or the previous years that all of a sudden made that absolutely necessary? Nothing.

The inspectors never got 100% cooperation from Iraq. Still that didn't mean Iraq was any kind imminent threat to the US or to anyone in the 90s. And that did not change in 2002, either.

"How do you know there was not more going on in Iraq in those 5 years. "

You mean how did I know that Iraq didn't have an active nuclear program, for example?
The IAEA concluded just that at the end of 1998 and then in 2002 both times without getting unfettered unfettered access as it was defined by Bush. But the IAEA didn't say 'we cannot determine whether Iraq had a nuclear program or not'. Instead they said explicitely that there was no evidence that Iraq rebuilt its nuclear program. Which made Cheney very angry if you remember and he said Elbaradei was wrong. Well they were on the ground just like in the 90s. And they knew best what Iraq had and didn't have. Did you believe them? Or you thought well these guys do no have "unfettered access" under the conditions which Bush set in 1441 so they cannot know whether Iraq had a nuclear program or not?

In 1998 the IAEA already concluded that Iraq's nuclear program was 99% elminated. You can't rebuilt that within less than 4 years while under sanctions and frequent bombings. The CIA did not dispute that until 2002 when mysteriously the nuclear issue appeared in the NIE. How strange. And you say Hillary believed that bullshit. Well...if she lost her mind she sure believed that.

So if you say that without "unfettered access" as it was defined by Bush noone could know whether Iraq
had any significant WMD arsenal or programs logically you also have to say that what Blix and Elbaradei said in 2002 was not reliable information. After all there was no 100% cooperation in 2002 just like there was no 100% cooperation during the 1990s.

What you don't seem to understand is that the inspectors could do their job in the 90s even without those conditions which Bush later demanded in 1441.
It may not have been enough to uncover every single detail of Iraq's WMD capability but it was enough
to effectively contain Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #56
58. In hindsight sure. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. No it's not hindsight. UNSCOM and the IAEA
were in Iraq in the 90s. We could know in 2002 what they did back then. We also knew what sanctions were put on Iraq and Iraq was bombed several times to destroy fascilities linked to WMD productions. You put all that together and the fact that the CIA didn't tell the Bush administration in 2001 that Iraq had a nuclear program (and that was the main pillar of the Bush argument, not the chembio weapons) and you have to be insane to believe the crap from Bush in 2002.

I didn't believe it because it didn't add up. In 2001 you have Powell and Rice telling the public that Saddam didn't have significant WMD capability. A year later you hear just the opposite. Hello?
You say that Hillary believed Bushco. If indeed she did she is an idiot and therefore has no place in the White House -- or anywhere in the government for that matter. There is only one other option: opportunism.
And that is also a good reason not to have her in the government.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #59
62. Did you really read the info at the link
Edited on Sun Oct-08-06 08:17 PM by Jim4Wes
Part of it follows:

An Assessment of UN Accomplishments in Iraq

BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS
UNSCOM FINDINGS AND ASSESSMENTS
# UNSCOM reported that it could not confirm the number of biological weapons Iraq produced, but the inspectors asserted that evidence suggested that more than 200 R-400 aerial bombs had been available for germ weapons.
# UNSCOM estimated that Iraq had understated its imports of growth media by at least 600 kilograms. UNSCOM assessed that at a total of at least 2,160 kilograms of key growth-media types had not been accounted for.
# Iraq claimed to have produced four drop-tank weapons to be used with aircraft to deliver biological agents, but UNSCOM only accounted for three and no evidence was offered that only four had been manufactured.
# UNSCOM could not account for 12 helicopter-borne aerosol generators that Iraq claimed to have made and then unilaterally destroyed.
# Few documents related to the biological weapons program were recovered by UNSCOM, and noticeably absent were any documents on planning and production.
# UNSCOM contended that the amount of biological agents produced by Iraq could be far greater than those declared.
# In a final January 1999 report, UNSCOM concluded it had no confidence that all bulk agents have been destroyed; that no BW munitions or weapons remain in Iraq; and that a BW capability does not still exist in Iraq.
# UNSCOM further added, It needs to be recognised that Iraq possesses an industrial capability and knowledge base, through which biological warfare agents could be produced quickly and in volume, if the Government of Iraq decided to do so

OUTSTANDING ISSUES
Citing the lack of documentation and Iraqs past incomplete and inadequate declarations on its biological weapons program, UNSCOM identified the key outstanding issue as nothing less than obtaining a full understanding of the scope of Iraqs germ warfare efforts. This would require Iraq submitting a complete disclosure of its program and then having it verified by outside experts.

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02...

You seem to overlook the obvious because Iraq did not cooperate with inspections (see 97 and 98 timeline) it was a "fair" assessment that he was trying to hide the extent of his weapons programs. Turned out he was an idiot as well as an asshole murdering bastard. If Sadaam had not escalated the situation in 97 and 98 it is unlikely that Bush and the Neocons would have gotten any support for his Iraq policies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #62
64. Of course they didn't know everything he had
But that's precisely the point. Everyone in the Clinton administration believed that
Iraq still had some kind of and some amount of chembio weapons and the inspections did not destroy all of them. Everyone believed that Saddam was hiding something. Nevertheless what they believed Iraq still had posed no threat to the US or to countries in the region that was not containable. Just because Iraq was believed to have chembio weapons was not a good reason to invade it or threatened it with an invasion.
By the same token you could have threatened Iran, Syria and Lybia as well as they too were believed to have chembio weapons.

So you had inspections in the 90s with Saddam not fully cooperating.
Noone - except the neocons - wanted to invade Iraq.

You would have had inspections in 2002 with Saddam not fully cooperating.
Suddenly a lot of people who want to invade Iraq.

And you think that was just logical.

Powell and Rice said what they said in 2001 because the inspections however flawed worked and made Saddam less not more of a threat. Again, what changed in 2002 compared to 2001 when Powell and Rice made those statements?

So far you could only say that it was after 9/11 but 9/11 didn't make Iraq more dangerous than it was before 9/11.

Whether Saddam was a thug or an idiot or what he did in 1998 was irrelevant.
Hillary didn't vote for that resolution because Saddam was an idiot or a thug or that he played games with the inspections during the 90s. If she had been concerned about the inspections she would have tried to change the language of that resolution to force Bush to wait until the inspectors finish their job, but she didn't. She voted for it as it was and it was the White House's own draft and they knew very well what words would give the maximum power to Bush. You say that Hillary believed what Bush said that the resolution was meant to strengten his hand at the UN so that the inspections could go on without roadblocks but you had to be an idiot to believe that as it was enough to take a look at the language of the res. and that whole argument collapsed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. You missed the point - I guess
This is my last try with you.

HE WAS AN IDIOT BECAUSE HE MADE PEOPLE THINK HE WAS HIDING SOMETHING.


CYA, REALLY THATS ENOUGH OF THIS FOR ME!! You get the last word, knock yourself out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #65
67. I understood that but as I said whether he was an idiot
or not was irrelevant when Hillary voted for the resolution. She obviously didn't do that because
Saddam was an idiot nor did she do that because Saddam tried to hide something.
As he behaved exactly the same way during the 90s still Hillary didn't think it was a good idea to threaten Iraq with an invasion or that Clinton should have a black check for war.

You kept dodging the question: what changed in 2002 that justified this new approach?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #67
74. A rough chronology as I understand it.
98
-The inspectors leave Iraq since their inspection of certain sites is being blocked and they are being harrassed.

-Clinton authorizes Desert Fox strike to destroy known weapons installations.

-The US Government adopts an underlying policy of regime change

99 through 2001

-The US and Britian lose in their efforts to have the Security Council get tough with Iraq, France and Russia object to various proposals and instead push for a weakening of sanctions.

2002

-The Bush administration makes a case to the country for removal of Hussein regime by force if necessary to insure compliance with UN resolutions. Intelligence is distorted to increase the perceived threat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Do you really want to talk about a joke?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Yes. Voters in the US are a bunch of jokes today.
They care about all the irrelevant stuff, star power or whatever shit they call what Hillary has, at the same time they couldn't point to Uzbekhistan on the map, let alone explain what our troops are doing there.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Thats not the joke I was referring to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. I know. That's the joke I was referring to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gully Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. Oh look, another new person railing against Democrats?
huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Not againts Democrats in general. But against
Hillary and this entire nonsense theater around her both in the media and in the electorate.
It's pathetic. Especially if someone thinks about all the serious problems we have had over the last 6 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NCarolinawoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. I totally agree with you.
There's an ".American Idol" mentality with the public at large.

These are dangerous times for our country and this "American Idol" mentality, plus an undereducated public that doesn't know history from beans and doesn't care, could be our downfall.

Sometimes I no longer believe we are deserving of the sacrifices made by the Founding Fathers and Mothers. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #1
16. Hi silko!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 05:45 PM
Response to Original message
44. Why would anyone complain that HRC is assisting Brown?
Edited on Sun Oct-08-06 05:46 PM by AtomicKitten
I again shake my head wondering why some people here have zero insight into the 'damned if she does and damned if she doesn't' HRC mantra that chokes the discourse here.

Jeez, I'm glad she's lending her clout because Brown is now several points ahead in this very important race and could use the support and funding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. The question is why does Hillary have a clout at all?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. What the hell difference does that make?
Jesus H. Christ. We get it. You don't like Hillary. So what? That has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that she is helping Brown. There is nothing wrong with that, in fact, there is everything right about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #48
57. I have nothing against Brown I just don't understand
why Hillary has any kind of clout at all.
And exactly how can she help Brown?

Who will vote for Brown just because Hillary is there with here alledged clout?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #48
61. Here,here,.Atomic Kitten..
I've (also) put silko on my ignore list...

I'm glad Hillary is there helping Brown.

The positive audience response is a good indication people are listening
to the voice of reason, whether it's Hillary OR Bill..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #61
66. Hillary the voice of reason?
Even if she was, which she is not, those in the crowd were hardly behaving reasonably. Rather it was all about emotions. And pretty superficial ones at that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #66
70. Politics Is An Emotional Business, Mt. Silko
Complaining about that, and berating people over it, is pointless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 06:05 AM
Response to Reply #70
72. That's precisely the problem
No it's not pointless. Unless you think that reasonn should not rule over emotions in politics.
When it does not you end up with people like Bush in the White House. Emotions made him president not reason. But let's not complain about that. No big problem, after all, that a jerk is president right? Any voter who votes according to how he feels instead of how he thinks is an idiot. I can only laugh at them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #72
76. Are you a vulcan?
With a super computer handy that is programmed with all available data on world events and politics and economic data?

I think you are only fooling yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #72
77. How Much Time Do You Spend Complaining, Sir
Edited on Mon Oct-09-06 11:28 AM by The Magistrate
About having ten fingers instead of twelve, or two arms instead of three? Complaint that reason does not rule over emotion in politics is a similar waste of effort. It does not matter whether my preference would be that it did or no: the fact is that it does not, never has, and never will, so long as politics is a business conducted by humans and human societies. Human beings do not conduct their affairs rationally, and chiefly make use of reason to disguise the emotional and prejudicial roots of their actions and feelings.

Politics in a democratic polity is an exercise in building group identities, in moving people to identify themselves with others banded together behind a standard and a leader waving it. People who do not like to be part of a group, and look down on those who do, are poorly suited to the business, and cannot give good advice for success at it. As a general rule, laughing at people, and disparraging them as foolish or emotional or deluded, is a poor means of securing their identification with your views and preferences.

This world is what it is, and one must work with the materials available. Successful politicians and activists recognize this. They know that manipulation of emotions is the true nature of their trade, and act accordingly. The side that does it best wins.

The most important element of the story that commenced this discussion is that it reports as fact, with numerous supporting evidences, that Sen. Clinton evokes adulation among a large number of people involved at the rank and file level of politics in the Democratic Party. This will be an important asset for her, should she attempt to gain the Party's nomination for President two years on, even more important than her copious funds and cadre of skilled advisors. Persons who dislike her on a variety of grounds, grounds that generally have no emotional resonance at all with any great number of persons, will find their cherished objections have all the effect of spit-balls on sheet steel when they raise them in opposing that effort.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #44
60. She's been a big help
I don't get it, either. Dems should be happy she's helping Sherrod's campaign, its working out fine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #60
63. Exactly Ozark!
I welcome all the big profile Dems that want to come to Ohio to stump and fund raise for our great candidates!

We have a great opportunity with Sherrod and the entire Dem ticket. We can use all the help we can get as the Republicans are doing what they always do - throwing tons of money into bull shit advertising.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #63
69. I wonder who will be the first candidate in the US
who will say "I will not spend a single cent for these stupid brainwashing ads. Let's see whether you can win an election without them".

So far the only pol I've heard speaking out against this TV ad dominated political culture is Gore.
Everyone else just plays the game as if it was the most natural thing in the world.
Raise money spend it on ads. Raise money spend it on ads. This goes on and on and on.
And then one wonders why most voters couldn't name 10 federal agencies let alone know what they are doing.

Can you name any of these ads which made any sense?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #60
68. You think anyone will vote for Brown
just because Hillary campaigns for him?
Any evidence for that?

What does "help" mean here exactly? What kind of help?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 11:18 PM
Response to Original message
71. Hillary can really pack 'em in. Dems are eager to field a winner in '08.
:dem:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 06:10 AM
Response to Reply #71
73. Because Hillary would win in 08?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #73
78. Would win, could win, will win. The "Hillary Parade" begins in '07
so either lead, follow or get the hell out of the way. :woohoo:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wisteria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
75. A lot of our Dem's are "rock stars' now a days.
happy to see she was out promoting other candidates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Aug 21st 2014, 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC