[Vision2020] Democrat Quotes Prove Nothing!
Tbertruss@aol.com
Tbertruss@aol.com
Tue, 1 Jun 2004 04:25:42 EDT
--part1_32.48a99bd1.2ded9786_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
All:
Let us assume for the moment every quote from the Democrats quoted by CJs
(the v2020 post was not signed) is correct.
The author of the v2020 post claims that all of these Democrats quoted now
say that Bush lied about WMDs, and took us to war unnecessarily. Also, that the
media will not present these quotes to the public. I assume we are supposed
to think the Democrats quoted are contradicting themselves somehow, or are
hypocritical. And that the media is engaging in some kind of censorship of these
quotes.
First off, let us assume some of these Democrats believed the intelligence
propagated by the Bush administration, specific intelligence, to list just a few
examples, about yellow cake from Niger to Iraq, about aluminum tubes used by
Iraq for a centrifuge for nuclear fuel processing, and about huge stockpiles
of biological and/or chemical weapons in Iraq, some deliverable by unmanned
drones. It should be pointed out that having weapons does not mean they can be
delivered. As Madeline Albright is quoted as saying, "Iraq is a long way from
[here]..."
Now we know as well documented fact that the claim by the Bush administration
of yellow cake from Niger to Iraq, and the aluminum tubes used for the
centrifuge for nuclear fuel processing, were false. The likelihood Iraq could have
inflicted a nuclear "Mushroom cloud over America," an image used by the Bush
administration to strike fear into the American public, is now known to be
zero, based on false intelligence or an outright lie. And unless some revelation
occurs, the huge stockpiles of biological and/or chemical weapons do not
exist.
Why is it so peculiar that some of these Democrats now feel deceived by the
Bush administration, and think the Iraq invasion a bad idea? Let's be clear.
The argument was not that Iraq had weapons programs, but that Iraq posed an
immanent danger from WMDs that demanded an immediate invasion! How easily it
seems people forget this logic by Bush. In fact, many Democrats were taken in
by false intelligence regarding the immediate extent of the threat of Iraq WMDs
directly to the USA, a very good reason to be hopping mad.
Some of the Democrat's quotes date from the Clinton years, and of course
there was concern then about Iraq weapons programs and the evidence that they were
active. But not one of the quotes presented reveals a direct call for a full
scale military invasion and occupation of Iraq. Other methods of dealing
with the threat of Iraq were suggested. Some of the quotes just assert or imply
there is a problem with Iraq's weapons that must be addressed.
There were air strikes ongoing against Iraq in the Clinton years, and UN
weapons inspectors did succeed in destroying weapons. Of course many questions
remained about what Iraq might be hiding, etc., and about noncompliance. Some
think Iraq gave the impression of hiding weapons as a defense strategy to give
Iraq's enemies like Iran the impression they had powerful weapons which they
in fact did not. A perfectly reasonable ploy.
But in the lead up the US invasion, when the threat of military force was
becoming more likely, Iraq did demonstrate more openness to inspections. Hans
Blix, the UN weapons inspector at that time, asserts to this day his work was of
value, and believes that if he had been allowed to continue, inspections
could have been effective in containing Iraq's weapons threats.
So why should not all these Democrats be yelling loudly about false
information (lies?) spread by the Bush administration, used to lead us to a war which
has not found any weapons of mass destruction, and has embroiled the US in a
bloody attempt at nation building, with very dubious chances of success we will
leave the Mideast a better place?
As far as your claim the media is not allowing these quotes from Democrats
about Iraq and its weapons to be presented, this is just plain false. I have
heard many of these quotes over and over, including the quotes from the Clinton
years, used to support the Bush administration effort! I have repeatedly
heard Madeline Albright's and John Kerry's quotes about the dangers of Iraq's
weapons and the threat they in theory posed.
Your post provides no specific information refuting the claim that the Bush
administration lied or presented false intelligence about Iraq's WMDs, nor
offers any arguments why the invasion of Iraq was necessary, even assuming there
was a major threat from Iraq's weapons to the US homeland.
Israel once saw a threat from Iraq dealing with nuclear weapons, but they did
not invade to solve the problem. They used air strikes to destroy a nuclear
power plant. Israel had far more to worry about regarding WMDs from Iraq then
the US. And Israel was capable of militarily defeating Iraq.
Here is a question I would like answered by anyone who supports the WMD
theory as a valid justification for the Iraq invasion: Why if these weapons existed
were they not used against US troops? Iraq was being devastated, Saddam
forced into running and hiding, and now is his chance to use his grand WMDs to
kill thousands upon thousands of US troops. If Saddam was such a threat to the
US, and he had WMDs, would not the US invasion provide an excellent opportunity
to use the weapons, especially when using these weapons against the US
homeland would be difficult, yet here were tens of thousands of US troops in easy
striking distance out in the desert of Iraq?
Awaiting your reply,
Ted Moffett
--part1_32.48a99bd1.2ded9786_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=3D2 PTSIZE=3D10 FAMILY=
=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0"><BR>
All:<BR>
<BR>
Let us assume for the moment every quote from the Democrats quoted by CJs (t=
he v2020 post was not signed) is correct.<BR>
<BR>
The author of the v2020 post claims that all of these Democrats quoted now s=
ay that Bush lied about WMDs, and took us to war unnecessarily. Also,=20=
that the media will not present these quotes to the public. I assume w=
e are supposed to think the Democrats quoted are contradicting themselves so=
mehow, or are hypocritical. And that the media is engaging in some kin=
d of censorship of these quotes.<BR>
<BR>
First off, let us assume some of these Democrats believed the intelligence p=
ropagated by the Bush administration, specific intelligence, to list just a=20=
few examples, about yellow cake from Niger to Iraq, about aluminum tubes use=
d by Iraq for a centrifuge for nuclear fuel processing, and about huge stock=
piles of biological and/or chemical weapons in Iraq, some deliverable by unm=
anned drones. It should be pointed out that having weapons does not me=
an they can be delivered. As Madeline Albright is quoted as saying, "I=
raq is a long way from [here]..."<BR>
<BR>
Now we know as well documented fact that the claim by the Bush administratio=
n of yellow cake from Niger to Iraq, and the aluminum tubes used for the cen=
trifuge for nuclear fuel processing, were false. The likelihood Iraq c=
ould have inflicted a nuclear "Mushroom cloud over America," an image used b=
y the Bush administration to strike fear into the American public, is now kn=
own to be zero, based on false intelligence or an outright lie. And un=
less some revelation occurs, the huge stockpiles of biological and/or chemic=
al weapons do not exist. <BR>
<BR>
Why is it so peculiar that some of these Democrats now feel deceived by the=20=
Bush administration, and think the Iraq invasion a bad idea? Let's be=20=
clear. The argument was not that Iraq had weapons programs, but that I=
raq posed an immanent danger from WMDs that demanded an immediate invasion!&=
nbsp; How easily it seems people forget this logic by Bush. In fact, m=
any Democrats were taken in by false intelligence regarding the immediate ex=
tent of the threat of Iraq WMDs directly to the USA, a very good reason to b=
e hopping mad.<BR>
<BR>
Some of the Democrat's quotes date from the Clinton years, and of course the=
re was concern then about Iraq weapons programs and the evidence that they w=
ere active. But not one of the quotes presented reveals a direct call=20=
for a full scale military invasion and occupation of Iraq. Other metho=
ds of dealing with the threat of Iraq were suggested. Some of the quot=
es just assert or imply there is a problem with Iraq's weapons that must be=20=
addressed.<BR>
<BR>
There were air strikes ongoing against Iraq in the Clinton years, and UN wea=
pons inspectors did succeed in destroying weapons. Of course many ques=
tions remained about what Iraq might be hiding, etc., and about noncomplianc=
e. Some think Iraq gave the impression of hiding weapons as a defense=20=
strategy to give Iraq's enemies like Iran the impression they had powerful w=
eapons which they in fact did not. A perfectly reasonable ploy.<BR>
<BR>
But in the lead up the US invasion, when the threat of military force was be=
coming more likely, Iraq did demonstrate more openness to inspections. =
Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector at that time, asserts to this day his w=
ork was of value, and believes that if he had been allowed to continue, insp=
ections could have been effective in containing Iraq's weapons threats.<BR>
<BR>
So why should not all these Democrats be yelling loudly about false informat=
ion (lies?) spread by the Bush administration, used to lead us to a war whic=
h has not found any weapons of mass destruction, and has embroiled the US in=
a bloody attempt at nation building, with very dubious chances of success w=
e will leave the Mideast a better place?<BR>
<BR>
As far as your claim the media is not allowing these quotes from Democrats a=
bout Iraq and its weapons to be presented, this is just plain false. I=
have heard many of these quotes over and over, including the quotes from th=
e Clinton years, used to support the Bush administration effort! I hav=
e repeatedly heard Madeline Albright's and John Kerry's quotes about the dan=
gers of Iraq's weapons and the threat they in theory posed.<BR>
<BR>
Your post provides no specific information refuting the claim that the Bush=20=
administration lied or presented false intelligence about Iraq's WMDs, nor o=
ffers any arguments why the invasion of Iraq was necessary, even assuming th=
ere was a major threat from Iraq's weapons to the US homeland.<BR>
<BR>
Israel once saw a threat from Iraq dealing with nuclear weapons, but they di=
d not invade to solve the problem. They used air strikes to destroy a=20=
nuclear power plant. Israel had far more to worry about regarding WMDs=
from Iraq then the US. And Israel was capable of militarily defeating=
Iraq.<BR>
<BR>
Here is a question I would like answered by anyone who supports the WMD theo=
ry as a valid justification for the Iraq invasion: Why if these weapons exis=
ted were they not used against US troops? Iraq was being devastated, S=
addam forced into running and hiding, and now is his chance to use his grand=
WMDs to kill thousands upon thousands of US troops. If Saddam was suc=
h a threat to the US, and he had WMDs, would not the US invasion provide an=20=
excellent opportunity to use the weapons, especially when using these weapon=
s against the US homeland would be difficult, yet here were tens of thousand=
s of US troops in easy striking distance out in the desert of Iraq?<BR>
<BR>
Awaiting your reply,<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>
--part1_32.48a99bd1.2ded9786_boundary--