Hypocrisy...

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
harris447 wrote:
No, just pointing out that your man’s speech was utter horseshit. it wasn’t “bad intelligence”. It was lies.

Point out 1 lie. Please!

United Nations’ inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons

Untrue.

Not according to the best intellegence available at the time. Inspecting Iraq: A Record of the First 40 Days: compiled by the Project on Defense Alternatives

By the way, there is a HUGE difference between somthing turning out to be untrue, and being a lie.

My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge.

Untrue

Bush tried to work with the UN. The UN refused to work with the US, probably because most of the security counsil was bought & paid for by Saddam. This sure as hell isn’t a lie.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/12/bush.speech.un/index.html

Saddam Hussein’s regime is a grave and gathering danger.

Utter horseshit.

Again, not according to the best intellegance avalable at the time.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap1.html

0 for 3 harris, any thing else you want to try to label as a lie?

[/quote]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/

We went to war based on information from a guy named “Curveball”.

You’re really backing the right horse here.

102

[quote]harris447 wrote:

0 for 3 harris, any thing else you want to try to label as a lie?

During and after the late 1990s, the few times Saddam evidently asked about the potential of certain Iraqi WMD options suggest he was not consistently focused on this issue. He asked ad hoc questions about feasibility of reconstituting programs and confined his confidences to hinting that Iraq might reconstitute WMD after sanctions. While he may have said he had the desire, no source has claimed that Saddam had an explicit strategy or program for the development or use of WMD during the sanctions period. Given the sensitivity of the subject, however, to share such thinking with anybody but a few close associates would have been out of character for Saddam. This lack of a formal statement would chime with his autocratic style of governance?especially given past experience with UN inspections searching for documents[/quote]

How is any of this relevant?

103

[quote]harris447 wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/

We went to war based on information from a guy named “Curveball”.

You’re really backing the right horse here.
[/quote]

There is no argument the intelligence turned out to be incorrect. That is a fact. You claimed Bush lied, I asked you to point out a lie, as yet, you have not been able to. On the other hand I was easily able to point out where you lied.

104

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
harris447 wrote:

0 for 3 harris, any thing else you want to try to label as a lie?

During and after the late 1990s, the few times Saddam evidently asked about the potential of certain Iraqi WMD options suggest he was not consistently focused on this issue. He asked ad hoc questions about feasibility of reconstituting programs and confined his confidences to hinting that Iraq might reconstitute WMD after sanctions. While he may have said he had the desire, no source has claimed that Saddam had an explicit strategy or program for the development or use of WMD during the sanctions period. Given the sensitivity of the subject, however, to share such thinking with anybody but a few close associates would have been out of character for Saddam. This lack of a formal statement would chime with his autocratic style of governance?especially given past experience with UN inspections searching for documents

How is any of this relevant?

[/quote]

“…[N]o source has claimed that Saddam had an explicit strategy or program for the development or use of WMD during the sanctions period.”

It’s relevant because the thing that YOU posted that said he was a threat…it says that he wasn’t.

105

[quote]harris447 wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
harris447 wrote:

0 for 3 harris, any thing else you want to try to label as a lie?

During and after the late 1990s, the few times Saddam evidently asked about the potential of certain Iraqi WMD options suggest he was not consistently focused on this issue. He asked ad hoc questions about feasibility of reconstituting programs and confined his confidences to hinting that Iraq might reconstitute WMD after sanctions. While he may have said he had the desire, no source has claimed that Saddam had an explicit strategy or program for the development or use of WMD during the sanctions period. Given the sensitivity of the subject, however, to share such thinking with anybody but a few close associates would have been out of character for Saddam. This lack of a formal statement would chime with his autocratic style of governance?especially given past experience with UN inspections searching for documents

How is any of this relevant?

“…[N]o source has claimed that Saddam had an explicit strategy or program for the development or use of WMD during the sanctions period.”

It’s relevant because the thing that YOU posted that said he was a threat…it says that he wasn’t.[/quote]

And the source of this is?

He had no plan to develop WMD during the sanction period, but had definate plans for restarting it after the sanctions were lifted. According to the CIA
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html
“Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable”

And according to David Kay,
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/kay.report/

Once again, your attempt to prove Bush lied has fallen pathetically flat.

106

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
harris447 wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
harris447 wrote:

0 for 3 harris, any thing else you want to try to label as a lie?

During and after the late 1990s, the few times Saddam evidently asked about the potential of certain Iraqi WMD options suggest he was not consistently focused on this issue. He asked ad hoc questions about feasibility of reconstituting programs and confined his confidences to hinting that Iraq might reconstitute WMD after sanctions. While he may have said he had the desire, no source has claimed that Saddam had an explicit strategy or program for the development or use of WMD during the sanctions period. Given the sensitivity of the subject, however, to share such thinking with anybody but a few close associates would have been out of character for Saddam. This lack of a formal statement would chime with his autocratic style of governance?especially given past experience with UN inspections searching for documents

How is any of this relevant?

“…[N]o source has claimed that Saddam had an explicit strategy or program for the development or use of WMD during the sanctions period.”

It’s relevant because the thing that YOU posted that said he was a threat…it says that he wasn’t.

And the source of this is?

He had no plan to develop WMD during the sanction period, but had definate plans for restarting it after the sanctions were lifted. According to the CIA
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html
“Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable”

And according to David Kay,
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/kay.report/

Once again, your attempt to prove Bush lied has fallen pathetically flat.

[/quote]

“While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq’s proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. his figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agents produced by Iraq.”

Scott Ritter
Boston Globe
July 20, 2002

“[The sanctions] have worked. He [Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.”

Colin Powell, speaking to Egyptian foreign minister Amre Moussa
February, 2001

“We are able to keep arms from him [Saddam]. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”

Condoleeza Rice
CNN Late Edition
July 28, 2001

Maybe THEY were lying. Or, it could just be little old me.

107

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
harris447 wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
harris447 wrote:

0 for 3 harris, any thing else you want to try to label as a lie?

During and after the late 1990s, the few times Saddam evidently asked about the potential of certain Iraqi WMD options suggest he was not consistently focused on this issue. He asked ad hoc questions about feasibility of reconstituting programs and confined his confidences to hinting that Iraq might reconstitute WMD after sanctions. While he may have said he had the desire, no source has claimed that Saddam had an explicit strategy or program for the development or use of WMD during the sanctions period. Given the sensitivity of the subject, however, to share such thinking with anybody but a few close associates would have been out of character for Saddam. This lack of a formal statement would chime with his autocratic style of governance?especially given past experience with UN inspections searching for documents

How is any of this relevant?

“…[N]o source has claimed that Saddam had an explicit strategy or program for the development or use of WMD during the sanctions period.”

It’s relevant because the thing that YOU posted that said he was a threat…it says that he wasn’t.

And the source of this is?

He had no plan to develop WMD during the sanction period, but had definate plans for restarting it after the sanctions were lifted. According to the CIA
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html
“Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable”

And according to David Kay,
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/kay.report/

Once again, your attempt to prove Bush lied has fallen pathetically flat.

[/quote]

And you didn’t post a link to this…

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/

I wonder why you ignored this?

108

And who do you propose was going to decide that it was time to drop the sanctions while this assessment was in effect.

You see, if the sanctions aren’t lifted and the conditions aren’t favorable, then there would never be a problem. What the hell are you smoking.

Every tinpot dictator on the planet would love to have nuclear weapons. That doesn’t mean they are all threats, because as some point in the future they may want to work towards that goal.

And who took their eye off of North Korea and Iraq anyway?

109

[quote]harris447 wrote:

“While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq’s proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. his figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agents produced by Iraq.”

Scott Ritter
Boston Globe
July 20, 2002[/quote]

Which Scott ritter do you believe?
“Ritter himself testified that under Saddam’s direct orders, the Iraqi government had lied to the Commission about its weapons stockpiles and that “Iraq presents a clear and present danger to international peace and security.””
http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2002/09/12.html
Or do rightly deduce that he has zero credibility? [quote]

“[The sanctions] have worked. He [Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.”

Colin Powell, speaking to Egyptian foreign minister Amre Moussa
February, 2001 [/quote]

Why not post the whole quote? “…So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime’s ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue.”
http://www.usis.it/file2001_02/alia/a1022304.htm

Which shows that Powell admits Saddam still had ambition to acquire WMD’s. [quote]

“We are able to keep arms from him [Saddam]. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”

Condoleeza Rice
CNN Late Edition
July 28, 2001
[/quote]

She also said, " Well, the president has made very clear that he considers Saddam Hussein to be a threat to his neighbors, a threat to security in the region, in fact a threat to international security more broadly. And he has reserved the right to respond when that threat becomes one that he wishes no longer to tolerate."
CNN.com - Transcripts [quote]

Maybe THEY were lying. Or, it could just be little old me.

[/quote]

They weren’t lying, you’re just taking things out of context, and trying to pass it off as evidence. Better try harder…

110

[quote]harris447 wrote:

And you didn’t post a link to this…

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/

I wonder why you ignored this?

[/quote]

Why? Because this is information came out after the war started!! It had the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. This information was not available before the war. A few other things in the Dulfer report:

“The massive report does say, however, that Iraq worked hard to cheat on United Nations-imposed sanctions and retain the capability to resume production of weapons of mass destruction at some time in the future. “[Saddam] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted,” a summary of the report says.”

Again, your attempt at “Bush lied” is shown to be bullshit.

111

[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack, let me know if you have something to actually say other than angry impotent bitching and whining.[/quote]

Coming from a first class whiner and moaner - I really don’t know whether to bust out laughing, or ask that you first practice what you preach

[quote]
The difference, in case you missed it, is that the crap I posted was my own, not somebody elses. [/quote]

At least you are big enough to admit that you post crap. I think we just had a break through.

112

[quote]vroom wrote:
“Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable”

And who do you propose was going to decide that it was time to drop the sanctions while this assessment was in effect.

You see, if the sanctions aren’t lifted and the conditions aren’t favorable, then there would never be a problem. What the hell are you smoking. ?[/quote]

Well, Saddams high paid friends in France, Germany & Russia, were in fact working to lift the sanctions. Try to keep up vroom.

[quote]

Every tinpot dictator on the planet would love to have nuclear weapons. That doesn’t mean they are all threats, because as some point in the future they may want to work towards that goal.

And who took their eye off of North Korea and Iraq anyway?[/quote]

As has been stated a dozen or so times on this thread, the threat of WMD’s was only one of multiple reaseons for invading Iraq. try to pay attention.

113

[quote]harris447 wrote:

“While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq’s proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. his figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agents produced by Iraq.”

Scott Ritter
Boston Globe
July 20, 2002

[/quote]

I’d say this guy is equally as credible as Ritter:

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20154

114

They weren’t lying, you’re just taking things out of context, and trying to pass it off as evidence.

Kinda like what the adminstration does.

115

[

“We are able to keep arms from him [Saddam]. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”

Condoleeza Rice
CNN Late Edition
July 28, 2001

She also said, " Well, the president has made very clear that he considers Saddam Hussein to be a threat to his neighbors, a threat to security in the region, in fact a threat to international security more broadly. And he has reserved the right to respond when that threat becomes one that he wishes no longer to tolerate."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0107/29/le.00.html

[/quote]

Uh…just because “the president has made it clear” doesn’t make it true.

116

[quote]harris447 wrote:
They weren’t lying, you’re just taking things out of context, and trying to pass it off as evidence.

Kinda like what the adminstration does.
[/quote]

Got any evidence to back that claim up, or is it just another one of your lies?

What has the administration taken out of context?

117

[quote]harris447 wrote:
[

“We are able to keep arms from him [Saddam]. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”

Condoleeza Rice
CNN Late Edition
July 28, 2001

She also said, " Well, the president has made very clear that he considers Saddam Hussein to be a threat to his neighbors, a threat to security in the region, in fact a threat to international security more broadly. And he has reserved the right to respond when that threat becomes one that he wishes no longer to tolerate."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0107/29/le.00.html

Uh…just because “the president has made it clear” doesn’t make it true.

[/quote]

Are you really that dense? How many times do we have to go over this? The best intelligence available at the time backed up everything Bush said. But don’t take Bush’s word for it:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

?Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.? -Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) September 4, 2002

?If we wait for the [Iraq] danger to become clear, it could be too late.? -Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del) September 4, 2002

?Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.? -Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) February 5, 2003

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

Give it up harris, you cannot prove that Bush lied, because he didn’t. You can give up on the “Bush lied” argument, because I’ll call you on it everytime, & run you into the ground with the facts.

118

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
harris447 wrote:
[

“We are able to keep arms from him [Saddam]. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”

Condoleeza Rice
CNN Late Edition
July 28, 2001

She also said, " Well, the president has made very clear that he considers Saddam Hussein to be a threat to his neighbors, a threat to security in the region, in fact a threat to international security more broadly. And he has reserved the right to respond when that threat becomes one that he wishes no longer to tolerate."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0107/29/le.00.html

Uh…just because “the president has made it clear” doesn’t make it true.

Are you really that dense? How many times do we have to go over this? The best intelligence available at the time backed up everything Bush said. But don’t take Bush’s word for it:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

?Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.? -Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) September 4, 2002

?If we wait for the [Iraq] danger to become clear, it could be too late.? -Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del) September 4, 2002

?Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.? -Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) February 5, 2003

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

Give it up harris, you cannot prove that Bush lied, because he didn’t. You can give up on the “Bush lied” argument, because I’ll call you on it everytime, & run you into the ground with the facts.
[/quote]

So,uh…where are the weapons?

119

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20031013/corn

Some excerpts:

He said the International Atomic Energy Agency had produced a report in 1998 noting that Iraq was six months from developing a nuclear weapon; no such report existed (and the IAEA had actually reported then that there was no indication Iraq had the ability to produce weapons-grade material).

And two days before launching the war, Bush said, “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” Yet former deputy CIA director Richard Kerr, who is conducting a review of the prewar intelligence, has said that intelligence was full of qualifiers and caveats, and based on circumstantial and inferential evidence.

Here’s a FUN lie:

He claimed he had not gotten to know disgraced Enron chief Ken Lay until after the 1994 Texas gubernatorial election. But Lay had been one of Bush’s larger contributors during that election and had–according to Lay himself–been friends with Bush for years before it.

How about this:

The Minutes were thrown into the faces of Bush and Blair during a joint press conference on June 7th. The two leaders were asked, “On Iraq, the so-called Downing Street memo from July 2002 says intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy of removing Saddam through military action. Is this an accurate reflection of what happened? Could both of you respond?”

Bush replied, “Well, I - you know, I read kind of the characterizations of the memo, particularly when they dropped it out in the middle of his race. I’m not sure who ‘they dropped it out’ is, but - I’m not suggesting that you all dropped it out there. And somebody said, well, you know, we had made up our mind to go to use military force to deal with Saddam. There’s nothing farther from the truth.”

But, yet in 2000 (2 years before he said this), removing Saddam was part of the Republican platform.

This is also interesting:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

Seen from today’s perspective this short paragraph is a strikingly clear template for the future, establishing these points:

  1. By mid-July 2002, eight months before the war began, president Bush had decided to invade and occupy Iraq.

  2. Bush had decided to “justify” the war “by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.”

  3. Already “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

  4. Many at the top of the administration did not want to seek approval from the United Nations (going “the UN route”).

  5. Few in Washington seemed much interested in the aftermath of the war.

We have long known, thanks to Bob Woodward and others, that military planning for the Iraq war began as early as Nov. 21, 2001, after the president ordered Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to look at “what it would take to protect America by removing Saddam Hussein if we have to,” and that Secretary Rumsfeld and Gen. Tommy Franks, who headed Central Command, were briefing American senior officials on the progress of military planning during the late spring and summer of 2002; indeed, a few days after the meeting in London leaks about specific plans for a possible Iraq war appeared on the front pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/22009/

120

Oh, and the US would have been afraid to veto any such proposal?

Look, your quotes with respect to Ritter and so on show that yes, everyone understood he represented an ongoing danger, but at the same time, the danger had been and was continuing to be contained.

Why can’t you accept both at the same time. The fact that he wanted things, and was a bad man, does not mean that he represented an active danger.

If he wasn’t an active, actual, danger at the time of invasion, then you’ve got a preemptive war because of what you believe someone may or may not do in the future.

That is pretty significant.