On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:14:19 -0400, Angel Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Quite simply, my point is this: > > FACT: George Bush's central reason for going to war in Iraq was that Iraq had > large stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction which > were a clear and present danger to the United States, and indeed to the world.
Iraq had the weapons according to the UN. Saddam agreed to destroy them to end the war but then reneged. According to Hans Blix the weapons Saddam was known to have were still missing and Saddam was still refusing to cooperate. This was a little over a month before the war and 12 years after he agreed to disarm. He had weapons, he used the weapons, and he refused to show he destroyed the weapons. Analogy: a known terrorist is spotted with a backpack in a crowded market in Israel. When he realizes he's recognized he yells they're only books and runs. Chances are he'll be shot. > FACT: Countries around the world, UN Weapons Inspectors, several Analysts, > And members of various US Administrations stated that > Iraq might not have WMD,and is probably not as immediate a threat as the US > is making it out to be.That more time should be taken > investigating the Evidence and allowing the UN Weapons Inspectors to make a > better determination of what really existed on the > ground in Iraq. Most countries believed and told us he had weapons. I know North Korea funded protests around the world against the war, but I know of no other countries that had doubts. As for weapons inspectors, Hans Blix changed his tune a week before the war. Before that he seemed to think they were there. > FACT: George Bush now says that as the evidence stands, Pre-War Iraq did NOT > have WMD and that the Intelligence process appears to > have been flawed and America must now determine what went wrong with the > Intelligence gathering. He actually said: "I felt like we'd find weapons of mass destruction — like many here in the United States, many around the world. The United Nations thought he had weapons of mass destruction," Bush told Walters. "So, therefore: one, we need to find out what went wrong in the intelligence gathering. … Saddam was dangerous and the world is safer without him in power." > > CONCLUSION: America went to war in Iraq based on flawed Intelligence. George > Bush erroneously took the United States into war, his > central reason for going to war with Iraq was false. > How about responding to that. One more thing: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/129kwktg.asp Duelfer, the U.N., and the New York Times The New York Times editorial board weighed in today. The Times notes that what the "Iraqi invasion has actually proved is that the weapons inspection worked, that international sanctions--deeply, deeply messy as they turned out to be--worked, and that in the case of Saddam Hussein, the United Nations worked." One wonders if anyone at the Times bothered to read the hundreds of pages in the Duelfer report, let alone all the UNSCOM and UNOMIC reports to the U.N. Security Council going back over a decade. The job of the inspections regime was to verify, based on the active cooperation of Iraqi officials, that Iraq had destroyed its weapons and was actively complying with multiple U.N. disarmament resolutions. Saddam Hussein's regime did no such thing, as Hans Blix stated to the Security Council on January 27, 2003: Resolution 687 (1991), like the subsequent resolutions I shall refer to, required cooperation by Iraq but such was often withheld or given grudgingly. Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance--not even today--of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace. President Clinton's Defense Secretary William Cohen made Blix's point five years earlier: "Hussein has said, 'we have no program now.' We're saying, 'prove it.' He says he has destroyed all his nerve agent. [W]e're asking 'where, when and how?'" Cohen added: "The onus for this is firmly on Saddam Hussein". The uncontested fact is that there were unaccounted for weapons and bulk agent the day Operation Iraqi Freedom began on March 19, 2003. According to UNMOVIC's May 30, 2003 report, " . . . the long list of proscribed items unaccounted for and as such resulting in unresolved disarmament issues was not shortened either by the inspections or by Iraqi declarations and documentation." Finally, on the question of sanctions, the September 2004 Duelfer report concluded that "as UN sanctions eroded there was a concomitant expansion of activities that could support full WMD reactivation." In addition, "the steps the Regime took to erode sanctions are obvious in the analysis of how revenues, particularly those derived from the Oil-for-Food program, were used. Over time, sanctions had steadily weakened to the point where Iraq, in 2000-2001, was confidently designing missiles around components that could only be obtained outside sanctions . . . . ISG's investigation also makes quite clear how Baghdad exploited the mechanism for executing the Oil-for-Food program to give individuals and countries an economic stake in ending sanctions." The New York Times may choose to believe "the United Nations worked." It didn't. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Get help! RoboHelp http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=58 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:142999 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
