Bush was not "forthright" on Iraq says

[Dr. D]

Then let's hear it from the Iraqis that Bush murdered their fellow Iraqis, why you speaking for them???

Kerry lost by 3 million votes.

I suggest let it go.

AGAIN, why are you speaking of the Iraqis?

Are you the authorized spokesperson?

I have already posted the opinion report of the Iraqis who overwhelmingly, at 90%, say that their lives were better under Saddam Hussein.

The Iraqis speak for themselves but they did not ask to be invaded or even protected from Hussein. The "liberation" has only caused a civil war and life in all parts of the nation is far from normal. And speaking of authorization, who authorized the invasion? And don't pull that "Congress voted" crap. The Congress voted to authorize Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refused to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hussein had no WMDs and there was no indication from the inspection teams that he did. If the U.N. had received the complete weapons report from Iraq, perhaps the information would have caused a different vote in Congress. But once authorized, Bush independently decided to invade . . . not Congress.

[Bill Hill]

"Hans Blix personally admonished Saddam for "cat and mouse" games and warned Iraq of "serious consequences" if it attempted to hinder or delay his mission."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix

yes it's abmonished... not abolished.

I wonder what was the 'serious consequences' if Saddam didn't comply?

I guess the rest is History as they say.

[Bill Hill]

Well, I'll trust the Iraqis and they responded to the questions like this . . . .

Do you feel the situation in the country is better today or better before the U.S.-led invasion?

Better today

5%

Better before

90%

Not sure

5%

Source: Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies / Gulf Research Center

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/14282

Methodology: Face-to-face interviews with 2,000 Iraqi adults in Baghdad Anbar and Najaf, conducted in late November 2006. Margin of error is 3.1 per cent.

Source: Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies / Gulf Research Center.

Interesting localised survey. Hardly surprising result , considering Baghdad was bombed very heavily in March and April 2003 in the 2003 invasion of Iraq and fell under US control by April 7-April 9. Additional damage was caused by the severe looting during the days following the end of the war.

Baghdad reconstruction

Ok.. let's look at the source...

Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies

From SourceWatch

Jump to: navigation, search

The Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies (ICRSS) is an independent" think tank in Baghdad. The Centre was established in May 2003 by Saadoun al Duleimi, the Centre's director, "who has a PhD in social psychology from Keele University." [1][2]

Now Iraq's Defense Minister, al Duleimi is a "member of a powerful Sunni Arab tribe from the Western Anbar province" and a "former lieutenant-colonel in Iraq's army who left the country in 1984 and lived in exile in Saudi Arabia until dictator Saddam Hussein lost power in 2003." Duleimi "spent the year before the war in Washington [DC] training with other exiles to take up the reins of power in Iraq once the fighting was over."

link

Kinda Ironic..... if Saddam wasn't removed then old Al Duleimi wouldn't have even been able to live in Baghdad to conduct his localized poll in the first place!

Edited May 31, 2008 by Bill Hill

[The Silver Thong]

quote

"Interesting localised survey. Hardly surprising result , considering Baghdad was bombed very heavily in March and April 2003 in the 2003 invasion of Iraq and fell under US control by April 7-April 9. Additional damage was caused by the severe looting during the days following the end of the war."

Yes they were bombed and what not, but at that time they thought they were being liberated not occupied and did not see this lasting this long. The point is moot.

Plus you mention 2003

quote

"bombed very heavily in March and April 2003 in the 2003 invasion"

But the survey was done in 2006. I would have thought that a survey done 3 years later would reflect better numbers in favor of the "invasion"/occupation hmmmm not a very good indication of whats going on.

quote

"Methodology: Face-to-face interviews with 2,000 Iraqi adults in Baghdad Anbar and Najaf, conducted in late November 2006. Margin of error is 3.1 per cent."

I would have thought a survey done 3 years after the initial "INVASION" would have had better results hmmmm. 3.1 margin of error, not bad!

Then you say

quote

"Now Iraq's Defense Minister, al Duleimi is a "member of a powerful Sunni Arab tribe from the Western Anbar province" and a "former lieutenant-colonel in Iraq's army who left the country in 1984 and lived in exile in Saudi Arabia until dictator Saddam Hussein lost power in 2003." Duleimi "spent the year before the war in Washington [DC] training with other exiles to take up the reins of power in Iraq once the fighting was over."

Would it not be more logical for Mr. Al Duleimi to have a more critical report/survey since he was exiled and had to move to Saudi Arabia till Saddam's down fall? I would have thought he might have held a grudge against Saddam, but according to this he see's that under Saddam the people were better off. He must be a very forgiving guy.

Than this

quote

"Kinda Ironic..... if Saddam wasn't removed then old Al Duleimi wouldn't have even been able to live in Baghdad to conduct his localized poll in the first place!"

Yet he and the survey say that the people think it was better under Saddam, Ironic indeed wouldn't you think. I think the survey was done in a very proffesional manner and that Mr. Al Duleimi has no axe to grind with Saddam. He did a survey and left his feeling aside according to your post.

Edited May 31, 2008 by The Silver Thong

[Bill Hill]

"Kinda Ironic..... if Saddam wasn't removed then old Al Duleimi wouldn't have even been able to live in Baghdad to conduct his localized poll in the first place!"

Yet he and the survey say that the people think it was better under Saddam, Ironic indeed wouldn't you think. I think the survey was done in a very proffesional manner and that Mr. Al Duleimi has no axe to grind with Saddam. He did a survey and left his feeling aside according to your post.

Or maybe he just 'made up the survey' and wants the US out and so he can kick start a civil war..

using his military training from Saddam.

I was just pointing out the fact... he wouldn't even be there... if Saddam was around- whatever his opinions/agenda. noble or not.

Even, if the survey is real...like is it conclusive....for a whole country?

Is it the end conclusion... what do we do?

[Bill Hill]

Yes they were bombed and what not, but at that time they thought they were being liberated not occupied and did not see this lasting this long. The point is moot.

It's not moot at all. Assuming the survey is genuine, then it's like asking 2000 German people (living in Berlin) a few years after the end of WWII "So was living in Berlin, under Hitler better before the war?"

Considering how bombed out Berlin was (at the time)... I'm sure the answer would've been a resounding yes.

Edited May 31, 2008 by Bill Hill

[AROCES]

Bush himself destroyed your U.N. trump card. The U.N. inspectors were there doing their job and Iraq complied with their more than 11,000 page report on their weapon arsenal. The Bush goons destroyed that report and sabotaged the process.

The inspectors were there as part of the agreement following Desert Storm. Hans Blix challenged and controlled Hussein for his failure to cooperate and later accused Bush and his mafia of over dramatizing the situation in order to justify their pre-planned invasion.

The U.N. was doing its job and even top administration members were forced to admit that the WMD claim was false. No lies, no deceits . . . . all that came with Bush's plan for personal glory.

You are now in the wrong forum, try conspiracies and fairy tales.

[AROCES]

HELLO MCFLY --- the inspectors weren't finished ( they were about to file the final report ) when Bush decided to tell them to get out because he was making a preemptive strike.

the final report wasn't delivered yet by Blix.

Mcfly??? Hello common sense. 2 years was given for Hans Blix to complete his inspection and he could not.

2 YEARS! The US Armed Forces did it in a few months.

Clinton didn't recognize Iraq as not a threat because it was at the time of presidential hand over to Bushco. Inspectors were in Iraq in 2000 -- reports organised and handed over in 2001 to Bush who by then was president.

Now that is your personal excuse for Clinton.

IAEA Press Release

PR 2000/04 (26 January 2000)

IAEA Inspectors Conclude Nuclear Materials Inspection in Iraq

A physical inventory verification of nuclear material remaining at the Tuwaitha site in Iraq was carried out by a five-person IAEA team between 22 and 25 January pursuant to the Safeguards Agreement with Iraq in connection with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

The Iraqi counterpart provided the necessary co-operation for the inspection team to perform its activities effectively and efficiently. The team conducted on-site measurements and other verification activities. No conclusions can be drawn on the results of the inspection until the analysis of all relevant data is completed in Vienna.

The inventory verification had the limited objective of verifying the presence of the nuclear material at the inspected location at Tuwaitha. As mentioned before it cannot serve as a substitute for the IAEA’s activities under the relevant Security Council resolutions, which are essential if the IAEA is to fulfill the mandate entrusted to it by the Security Council under those resolutions and to provide the necessary assurances sought by the Security Council. In this respect the Agency looks forward to resuming its inspection activities in Iraq under these resolutions, in particular in accordance with the Agency’s plan for ongoing monitoring and verification.

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/PressReleas...0/prn0400.shtml

as for lifting any sanctions -- it's their discretion and rarely does a country that has had sanctions have all of them lifted at once -- although some of them were against Iraq.

All the IAEA and UN have to do was OFFICIALLLY declare that Iraq is not a threat anymore, pull back Resolution 17 and the war could have been avoided.

You have so many stories now and it's all too late.

Edited May 31, 2008 by AROCES

[AROCES]

Well, I'll trust the Iraqis and they responded to the questions like this . . . .

Do you feel the situation in the country is better today or better before the U.S.-led invasion?

Better today

5%

Better before

90%

Not sure

5%

Source: Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies / Gulf Research Center

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/14282

Yes, better with Saddam so they hanged him.

[AROCES]

"Hans Blix personally admonished Saddam for "cat and mouse" games and warned Iraq of "serious consequences" if it attempted to hinder or delay his mission."

What consequence????

[AROCES]

Well we all know the pen it is mightier than the sword and so yes Hussain was affraid of Blix, pretty cut and dry really.

Maybe these are the WMD's bush and Clinton were worried about......... This made me laugh out loud click the link.

Ewwwwww scary

Oh GEE! Saddam had corrupted the UN, he was laughing at it and monkeying around with it's resolutions.

[AROCES]

I have already posted the opinion report of the Iraqis who overwhelmingly, at 90%, say that their lives were better under Saddam Hussein.

Then why did they hang Saddam, and why don't they demand the Baath party back?

The Iraqis speak for themselves but they did not ask to be invaded or even protected from Hussein. The "liberation" has only caused a civil war and life in all parts of the nation is far from normal. And speaking of authorization, who authorized the invasion? And don't pull that "Congress voted" crap. The Congress voted to authorize Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refused to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Nope, the use of Armed Florces were authorized to enforce UN Resolution 17 and 30 other countries supported the use of force.

Your knowledge is obviously from blogs or tabloids.

Hussein had no WMDs and there was no indication from the inspection teams that he did. If the U.N. had received the complete weapons report from Iraq, perhaps the information would have caused a different vote in Congress. But once authorized, Bush independently decided to invade . . . not Congress.

UN weapons inspectors were given 2 years to complete their report and Saddam keeps monkeying with them and so Hans Blix kept asking for more time,WHILE SADDAM AND Hans Blis boss KOFI IS MAKING THEIR OIL FOR FOOD CORRUPT DEALS.

As you can see the reality of things doe snot really jive with your belief.

[acidhead]

AGAIN, when Congress was about to vote for Military action against Saddam where are all this people who knows this and that????

They all came out AFTER we VERIFIED there was no WMD.

And it is pretty clear why, for they are not sure either if a WMD do exist or not.

Your point is clear.. everybody who approved Bush's decision in '03 did so with the same intelligent reports as Bush.

you seem to think that everybody read the exact same reports that Dubya was briefed on by George Tenet and then ALL

of them agreed with Bush that action must be taken..

This is so far from what really happened..

And, you're most probably going to disagree with me so PLEASE feel free to brief all of us what really happened.

[The Silver Thong]

It's not moot at all. Assuming the survey is genuine, then it's like asking 2000 German people (living in Berlin) a few years after the end of WWII "So was living in Berlin, under Hitler better before the war?"

Considering how bombed out Berlin was (at the time)... I'm sure the answer would've been a resounding yes.

Classic, you want to compare Saddam to Hitler I'm sorry the comparison is not even worth a discussion. Besides Kuwait which was once a part or Iraq did Saddam try to take over? The Kurds of the north hmmm, he did that with American help hence he acquired the gas from the States for just that purpose. Enemy now friend later then enemy again ?

The Iraq war with Iran well sure big freakin deal it was there war, such as the U.S. had with Vietnam oh wait, again a war they had no reason to be apart of, what happened there? I wonder what a poll in Vietnam would have said at the time? No matter what it's just a poll right, a poll means jack?

Your reference to WWII is an insult as it was a world war not a one nation war with an agenda behind it. WWII was nothing like this and I find it a wee bit offensive to even have the two mentioned in the same sentence.

Bill, Tell me how did Hitler take control of his democracy and turn it into a fascist state? I could tell you...

[The Silver Thong]

Oh GEE! Saddam had corrupted the UN, he was laughing at it and monkeying around with it's resolutions.

Oh Gee it must be really funny for you to think thousands opon thousands died under those sanctions, all because of his WMD's. How is it that you see the war in Iraq as GOOD? It has nothing to do with who is the good guy. Oh wait a sec you and Bush are the good guy's in this movie that doesn't use special effects or stunt guy's. Instead you like to use real people and well, exploit it and call it "it's the best for them" and we will show them, while firing your guns in the middle of the village.

Ya right Saddam took over the U.N. and the U.S. was it's puppy. Give it up man!

[The Silver Thong]

Quote

"Then why did they hang Saddam, and why don't they demand the Baath party back?"

We could only wish the same for Bush, but as to what party to vote in next, hell thats a scary choice......

Saddam was hung because of American propaganda and political pressure from the States and the people that were dominated by a minority The U.S. gov should have stopped the hanging of Saddam oh wait the U.S. condones the death penalty hmmm. He would have been much more use alive than dead, but then dead men tell no tails. Hence of course he was killed. I could just imagine what Saddam might have had to say about his dealings and collaborations with America. But eh he's dead, go figure.

[Lt_Ripley]

Mcfly??? Hello common sense. 2 years was given for Hans Blix to complete his inspection and he could not.

2 YEARS! The US Armed Forces did it in a few months.

Now that is your personal excuse for Clinton.

All the IAEA and UN have to do was OFFICIALLLY declare that Iraq is not a threat anymore, pull back Resolution 17 and the war could have been avoided.

You have so many stories now and it's all too late.

first off - resolution 17 has nothing to do with Iraq.

here is the fact short and simple for you to understand.

On 8 November 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15 to 0 vote, which included Russia, China and France, and Arab countries, such as Syria. This gave this resolution wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution. Although the Iraqi parliament voted against honoring the UN resolution, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein over-ruled them.[citation needed]

While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case. The ambassador for the United States, John Negroponte, said:

“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.[2] ”

The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:

“ We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" -- the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.[3] ”

The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria:

“ Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.[4]

------

Published on Friday, March 5, 2004 by the lndependent/UK

Blix: Iraq War Was Illegal

Blair's defense is bogus, says the former UN weapons inspector

by Anne Penketh in Stockholm and Andrew Grice

The former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has declared that the war in Iraq was illegal, dealing another devastating blow to Tony Blair.

Mr Blix, speaking to The Independent, said the Attorney General's legal advice to the Government on the eve of war, giving cover for military action by the US and Britain, had no lawful justification. He said it would have required a second United Nations resolution explicitly authorizing the use of force for the invasion of Iraq last March to have been legal.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0305-01.htm

this is fact --- you believe in Fiction. ( not to mention all Bushs' yes men are ratting him out by telling the truth)

Edited May 31, 2008 by Lt_Ripley

[Bill Hill]

Classic, you want to compare Saddam to Hitler I'm sorry the comparison is not even worth a discussion. Besides Kuwait which was once a part or Iraq did Saddam try to take over?

yeah Hitler was a dictator while Saddam was.......also a dictator. Hitler also considered Austria and Czechoslovakia part of Germany..same way Saddam used Kuwait as part of Iraq argument ..(If you're using that to justify Saddam's actions?)

The Kurds of the north hmmm, he did that with American help hence he acquired the gas from the States for just that purpose.

America's help? Have you got a direct-link? Because other countries supplied him with Chemicals...(It's called capitalism) the only person responsible for using them is Saddam.

You can buy a knife from me... if you want, but please don't use to kill people... if you do.. then you're responsible not me.

Enemy now friend later then enemy again?

That's International politics for ya... more like the choice between lesser of two evils than a friend.

Why even in 1938, Hitler was named as TIME magazine's Man of the Year for 1938 for his role in the Munich Agreement.

Yep even Hitler at one time was considered... alright.. best leave him alone and maybe he'll be alright.

[Bill Hill]

The Iraq war with Iran well sure big freakin deal it was there war, such as the U.S. had with Vietnam oh wait, again a war they had no reason to be apart of, what happened there? I wonder what a poll in Vietnam would have said at the time? No matter what it's just a poll right, a poll means jack?

Not sure what you're saying here? Are you saying all polls are always correct?

I was just casting doubt on the Baghdad poll.. (tracing it back to who conduced the poll)

Questioning it's authenticity, rather than blindly accepting it.

Your reference to WWII is an insult as it was a world war not a one nation war with an agenda behind it. WWII was nothing like this and I find it a wee bit offensive to even have the two mentioned in the same sentence.

You're personally offended by the comparison? Like an emotional response...? I'm sure someone (somewhere) would be offended by your American's agenda reference. What is it by the way?

Is it the NWO? Or about Oil, or about getting rid of a dictator, Imperialism.. Bush's war... arm's dealers profits... neocons, western racism.. religious intolerance, fighting terrorists... Islamic nazis or Zionists plots?

My point is, everyone's gonna have a different opinion... I'm just saying, I'm glad they got rid of a psychopathic dictator like Saddam.

Good job.

Sure, it's messy but when is getting rid of a dictator easy?

The rest to me..is like this, if we've given a chance for the Iraq people to choose the Democratic process and decide their own future then that's an positive achievement.

Hell, the Iraqi people might blow it... but I'd still prefer to wait and see... rather than make a premature conclusion.

imo Too many good people have already died, for us not to at consider it an option. Hey, you never know..everything might turn out ok.

Bill, Tell me how did Hitler take control of his democracy and turn it into a fascist state? I could tell you...

Very complicated and ingenious imo.

Sure the Nazi's were voted in... (at the beginning...) but the important aspect, is his party infiltrated the German military...(Nazi party used as a union)

So, when he committed the coup and murdered the potentially effective opposition ie taking total control (the night of the long knifes) no one could do anything about it...

sure people complained and b****ed... but you need the military to stop a violent coup.

Hitler controlled them and declared himself 'The supreme judge of the German people.'

Has George Bush has his night of the long knifes yet? Has he murdered the opposition... declared marshal law yet?

Until then,he can be voted out by good old ...democracy.

[Dr. D]

You are now in the wrong forum, try conspiracies and fairy tales.

You have a point. When we speak of Bush it should be in conspiracies. When we speak of those who endorse his insanity, it should be in fairy tales.

[Bill Hill]

Hussein had no WMDs and there was no indication from the inspection teams that he did. If the U.N. had received the complete weapons report from Iraq, perhaps the information would have caused a different vote in Congress. But once authorized, Bush independently decided to invade . . . not Congress.

Everyone knew he had them, because he used them... the question is where are the WMDs now? What happened to them?

Anyone?

No one knows... we only have theories.

Perhaps you agree with Hans Blix's theory? From his cough... latest report...I mean book-

(yep..he's done alright)

Blix is inclined to believe Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law, who briefly defected to Jordan in 1995 and told his interrogators that he had ordered all WMD destroyed in the summer of 1991. Why then had the Baathi regime in Iraq not presented categorical evidence to the inspectors? The answer, Blix surmises, is that Saddam is a proud man. Also, badly weakened after his defeat in 1991, he may have needed the threat of unconventional weaponry to deter the Kurds, the Shia and his neighbours. To have bluffed when the stakes were so high was a misjudgment of heroic proportions.

Guardian book review

There's your answer. Good enough?

Personally to me..it shows just how ineffective his 'inspections' were; because he had to rely on belief and speculative opinion.

[AROCES]

Your point is clear.. everybody who approved Bush's decision in '03 did so with the same intelligent reports as Bush.

you seem to think that everybody read the exact same reports that Dubya was briefed on by George Tenet and then ALL

of them agreed with Bush that action must be taken..

This is so far from what really happened..

And, you're most probably going to disagree with me so PLEASE feel free to brief all of us what really happened.

George Tenet is the Primary source of all the info, and what was presented to everyone he approved and no one else. It is then his responsibility to assure everyone that what is being handed to the decision makers for us to go to war is accurate.

That is pretty simple.

[AROCES]

Oh Gee it must be really funny for you to think thousands opon thousands died under those sanctions, all because of his WMD's. How is it that you see the war in Iraq as GOOD? It has nothing to do with who is the good guy. Oh wait a sec you and Bush are the good guy's in this movie that doesn't use special effects or stunt guy's. Instead you like to use real people and well, exploit it and call it "it's the best for them" and we will show them, while firing your guns in the middle of the village.

Ya right Saddam took over the U.N. and the U.S. was it's puppy. Give it up man!

And you prefer to do nothing to a Tyrant like Saddam for it was nice and quiet, Saddam simply bury everyone in a mass graves without anyone knowing and obvioulsy your prefer that than seeing those oppress giving it a fight for now you see death instead of being it concealed on mass graves.

Like you said, you see it like a movie.

[Dr. D]

Everyone knew he had them, because he used them... the question is where are the WMDs now? What happened to them?

Anyone?

No one knows... we only have theories.

Perhaps you agree with Hans Blix's theory? From his cough... latest report...I mean book-

(yep..he's done alright)

Guardian book review

There's your answer. Good enough?

Personally to me..it shows just how ineffective his 'inspections' were; because he had to rely on belief and speculative opinion.

And what did the Bush bunch rely on? How many ex-security personnel testified that they were pressured to submit the type of intelligence the administration wanted? If the Iraqi weapons report had not been mutilated, would it have been discovered that the WMDs did not exist? Would any of these options have been better than blindly attacking a nation that was not associated with terrorism . . . all in the name of the war against terror?

[AROCES]

Quote

"Then why did they hang Saddam, and why don't they demand the Baath party back?"

We could only wish the same for Bush, but as to what party to vote in next, hell thats a scary choice......

Saddam was hung because of American propaganda and political pressure from the States and the people that were dominated by a minority The U.S. gov should have stopped the hanging of Saddam oh wait the U.S. condones the death penalty hmmm. He would have been much more use alive than dead, but then dead men tell no tails. Hence of course he was killed. I could just imagine what Saddam might have had to say about his dealings and collaborations with America. But eh he's dead, go figure.

HAH! When the Iraqis hanged Saddam they are puppets, when they decided to do diplomacy with Iran you folks say they are not grateful to us and then you folks post polls here about Iraq hating us.

You folks must have voted for Flip flop Kerry.

Edited May 31, 2008 by AROCES