Does anyone still think Iraq had WMD's?

Re: Re: Re: Re: No,

sigh said:

Define imminent, please.

Click to expand...

You said, "It was only the imminent threat of danger that got Bush the support he needed".

The President did not say the threat was imminent. What he said, in the 2003 State of the Union was, "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?"

That's pretty clear. I'm not spinning. I'm pointing out that he never said what his critics attribute to him. It's their spin I'm disproving.

no my memory is right.....I don't see anywhere him saying we must do it for the people. I concur that he did mention them though. That i think is for you to decide on. I don't see it. I never saw Saddam Flaunting towards america..Oh you mean the file footage of him with his rifle. Yeah scary stuff.

Add in the link to terror (assuming he mean't 9/11). Which we know not to be true.

Btw that gas, we helped give him. Well helped in showing him how to produce it.

I never said anything about Korea and Iran.

I agree about Korea and Iran is looking at an uprising soon.

Guess who else was in on the Bush conspiracy.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal
here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

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

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 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), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

"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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 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, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 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), Oct. 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), Oct. 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), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every
significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 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), Oct 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), Dec. 8, 2002

"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), Jan. 23. 2003

I really liked Hillary's quote linking WMD and al Qaeda in the same paragraph.
Now, if all of these esteemed Democrats were telling the truth when they wrote or said these things, and I have every reason to believe they were being honest, it would appear President Bush is only guilty of taking care of a problem that everyone agreed existed.

Ham Murabi said:

Guess who else was in on the Bush conspiracy.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal
here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

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

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 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), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

"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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 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, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 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), Oct. 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), Oct. 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), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every
significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 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), Oct 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), Dec. 8, 2002

"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), Jan. 23. 2003

I really liked Hillary's quote linking WMD and al Qaeda in the same paragraph.
Now, if all of these esteemed Democrats were telling the truth when they wrote or said these things, and I have every reason to believe they were being honest, it would appear President Bush is only guilty of taking care of a problem that everyone agreed existed.

Click to expand...

Get those fucking facts out of here.

Everyone knows their fingers were crossed behind their backs when they said those things.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No,

JazzManJim said:

You said, "It was only the imminent threat of danger that got Bush the support he needed".

The President did not say the threat was imminent. What he said, in the 2003 State of the Union was, "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?"

That's pretty clear. I'm not spinning. I'm pointing out that he never said what his critics attribute to him. It's their spin I'm disproving.

Click to expand...

That's pretty clear that he's saying "THE DANGER IS IMMINENT U JUST DON"T KNOW IT U FAGS!"

Ham Murabi said:

Guess who else was in on the Bush conspiracy.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

Click to expand...

This absolves Bush of his intelligence failures and misguided actions exactly how?

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Click to expand...

This absolves Bush of his intelligence failures and misguided actions exactly how?

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal
here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

Click to expand...

This absolves Bush of his intelligence failures and misguided actions exactly how?

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

Click to expand...

This absolves Bush of his intelligence failures and misguided actions exactly how?

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

Click to expand...

This absolves Bush of his intelligence failures and misguided actions exactly how?

"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), Dec. 16, 1998

Click to expand...

This absolves Bush of his intelligence failures and misguided actions exactly how?

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Click to expand...

This absolves Bush of his intelligence failures and misguided actions exactly how?

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

Click to expand...

This absolves Bush of his intelligence failures and misguided actions exactly how?

"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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

Click to expand...

This absolves Bush of his intelligence failures and misguided actions exactly how?

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Click to expand...

This absolves Bush of his intelligence failures and misguided actions exactly how?

"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, Sept. 23, 2002

Click to expand...

This absolves Bush of his intelligence failures and misguided actions exactly how?

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

Click to expand...

This absolves Bush of his intelligence failures and misguided actions exactly how?

"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), Oct. 3, 2002

Click to expand...

This absolves Bush of his intelligence failures and misguided actions exactly how?

"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), Oct. 9, 2002

Click to expand...

This absolves Bush of his intelligence failures and misguided actions exactly how?

"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), Oct 10, 2002

Click to expand...

This absolves Bush of his intelligence failures and misguided actions exactly how?

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every
significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

Click to expand...

This absolves Bush of his intelligence failures and misguided actions exactly how?

"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), Oct 10, 2002

Click to expand...

This absolves Bush of his intelligence failures and misguided actions exactly how?

"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), Dec. 8, 2002

Click to expand...

This absolves Bush of his intelligence failures and misguided actions exactly how?

"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), Jan. 23. 2003

Click to expand...

This absolves Bush of his intelligence failures and misguided actions exactly how?

I really liked Hillary's quote linking WMD and al Qaeda in the same paragraph.
Now, if all of these esteemed Democrats were telling the truth when they wrote or said these things, and I have every reason to believe they were being honest, it would appear President Bush is only guilty of taking care of a problem that everyone agreed existed.

Click to expand...

This absolves Bush of his intelligence failures and misguided actions exactly how?

You know, when you have to retreat so far as to suggest that a President blame other people's booboos for not checking his facts himself before committing troops to war, you've really hit zero-integrity pay dirt.

plasmaball said:

no my memory is right.....I don't see anywhere him saying we must do it for the people. I concur that he did mention them though. That i think is for you to decide on. I don't see it. I never saw Saddam Flaunting towards america..Oh you mean the file footage of him with his rifle. Yeah scary stuff.

Add in the link to terror (assuming he mean't 9/11). Which we know not to be true.

Btw that gas, we helped give him. Well helped in showing him how to produce it.

I never said anything about Korea and Iran.

I agree about Korea and Iran is looking at an uprising soon.

Click to expand...

You're now changing your argument. You claimed that he never mentioned the people of Iraq and now that I've proven, from your own link, that he did, you're reframing the argument.

We know Hussein's link to terror isn't true? You seem to know more than Senator Even Bayh, member of the Intelligence Commitee, who said, ""the relationship seemed to have its roots in mutual exploitation. Saddam Hussein used terrorism for his own ends, and Osama bin Laden used a nation-state for the things that only a nation-state can provide." Joseph Lieberman said, "I want to be real clear about the connection with terrorists. I've seen a lot of evidence on this. There are extensive contacts between Saddam Hussein's government and al Qaeda and other terrorist groups". CIA Director George Tenet said more than a year ago that his agency had "solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade," that the CIA had "credible information" about discussions between Iraq and al Qaeda on "safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression" and "solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad," and "credible reporting" that "Iraq has provided training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs."

James Woolsey, Presient Clinton's CIA Director said, "Anybody who says there is no working relationship between al Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence going back to the early '90s--they can only say that if they're illiterate. This is a slam dunk."

A lengthy series of article with exacting detail is right here.

This post might get lost, and if so, I can always repost.

This is a very small exerpt from just one of a great number of articles archived. It snowed like hell and all I could do was read.....10 - 14 hours some days, just trying to find an explanation.

the date of this article was February 4, 2003

"Violence is, was, and always will be bankrupt, anti-human, criminal--always." Philip Berrigan, 1923--2002

With support for war waning down internationally and domestically, war does not seem so inevitable, despite troop assemblies. The European countries which insist the UN inspection process take hold, such as France and Germany, seem to reflect the public opinion of their respected societies. Countries such as Italy and the United Kingdom that stand behind the Bush Administration's preemptive/unilateral approach don't seem to mirror the consensus of their citizens. Last Wednesday, the bishops of the Church of England expressed their strongest criticism yet of Blair's policy on Iraq. On this issue, Blair does not seem to have the full support of everyone even in his own party. That leaves Poland and Saint Lucia.

Turkey, Iran and other governments in the region have not uttered any support for this war, although they have expressed support for the UN objective to disarm Saddam. Where as they see Saddam as a destabilizing element in the region, war at their borders seem to be more of a de-stabilizer. The new Turkish government /parliament has a difficult task to balance a 4 billion dollars loan incentive against a population constituency that has just voted them into office.

The Non-proliferation Project at the "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace" has just released a 42-page report titled "Iraq: what is next?" assessing the weapons inspection regime. On the strategy of Iraq disarmament, the document is critical of Bush's approach to the Iraq situation. Presentation of this document and its recommendations on disarmament de-legitimizes the Administration's needed support for war preparation. Senior Senators Lugar and Biden of the Foreign Relations Committee, have expressed their doubts on this question, and while committed to disarming Iraq--if, in fact, there are any WMD -- are not convinced and to date have not fully endorsed President Bush's war plans. On a recent Public Broadcasting Television interview, Senator Biden was asked if the Administration had any evidence of WMD and if so, had it been presented him? He smiled, looked at Senator Lugar and said ! "I hope so."

Retired General Wesley K. Clark, a former NATO commander, has joined other top military professional men such as Gen. Brent Scowcroft (National Security Advisor to Pres. Bush senior), General Norman Schwarzkopf, (the Desert Storm commander), Anthony Zinni (former commander of the armed forces in the Persian Gulf) and John Shalikashvili (former chief of staff) in expressing his opposition and doubts about the war. Uneasiness about the war is not limited to the retirees (officers who are free to speak); journalists maintain that there is a schism between the professional military and the Pentagon civilian leadership--the political appointees. Many of the present senior generals, were field lieutenants during the Vietnam War, and are very wary of a military campaign that does not have full support back home. In an interview with National Public Radio, Ken Adelman, a member of the Defense Policy Board, explicitly acknowledge this rift. His response to that was, that is why we have civilian leadership of the military.

Analysts have observed that the recent Bush Administration's opposition to the International Criminal Court [ICC] would tend to protect any future American unilateral campaign and pre-emptive military operations.

There are voices that advance a human rights perspective and caution the world and American public opinion against a military invasion and long-term military occupation. A noticeable segment of the public does not seem to be embracing the nexus of the WTC tragedy, and the invasion of Iraq. More significantly, this uneasiness is also about the loss of innocent lives. Best-selling spy novelist John Le Carre is one of the many voices concerned about the possibility of war. In an opinion piece for the Times of London (January 16, 2003), he adamantly opposes the war on Iraq and believes that potentially it is more disastrous than the Vietnam War.

On Thursday January 30th, an article, in The New York Times featured two cadets who have not been deployed yet, but had participated in an anti-war protest. If war is not perceived as inevitable, then, is there a place for resignation?
<clip>
full story at
http://www.counterpunch.org/marjaee02042003.html

Click to expand...

You're now changing your argument. You claimed that he never mentioned the people of Iraq and now that I've proven, from your own link, that he did, you're reframing the argument.

Click to expand...

No i didn't. I said i concur. OR concede take your pick...But i also said he didn't start saying we needed to free the Iraq people till about six months later. When the Wmd's Sorta dropped off from the main focus(still being there but not much).

Didn't they also say that the memo from a few weeks ago was false and there was no connection? I think so.....Or am i wrong on this also jim.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No,

JazzManJim said:

You said, "It was only the imminent threat of danger that got Bush the support he needed".

The President did not say the threat was imminent. What he said, in the 2003 State of the Union was, "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?"

That's pretty clear. I'm not spinning. I'm pointing out that he never said what his critics attribute to him. It's their spin I'm disproving.

Click to expand...

Nice job again. Sorry, but I don't buy it. Yes, he said that (or I guess he did, since you're quoting it) but he also said this:

"In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world -- and we will not allow it."

and this:

"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."

and this:

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

Dick Cheney said this:

"We are greatly concerned about any possible linkup between terrorists and regimes that have or seek weapons of mass destruction...In the case of Saddam Hussein, we've got a dictator who is clearly pursuing and already possesses some of these weapons.. A regime that hates America and everything we stand for must never be permitted to threaten America with weapons of mass destruction."

and Condoleeza Rice added this one:

"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

While Ari Fleischer added this:

"There is already a mountain of evidence that Saddam Hussein is gathering weapons for the purpose of using them. And adding additional information is like adding a foot to Mount Everest."

Now Jim, I'll concede that the word "imminent" was not used in these quotes. One point for you. But you can't deny the breadth and scope of the scare tactics that have been used first to take us to war, and then to justify it after the fact.

Here is another exerpt of an article addressing the issues as they were happening. Once again, the link to the full article is provided at the end of the exerpt. This one was calling into question the vague claims of Dr. Rice and the lack of actual proof.


This was written and dated January 28, 2003

If Iraq is lying (and it is difficult to imagine Mr Saddam Hussein telling the truth about the time of day) then let it be proved. Saying over and over again that Mr Hussein tells lies and therefore must have NBC weapons is not good enough

Let us be realistic about repeated US assertions that Iraq has nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) weapons. (President George Bush calls them "Weapons of Mass Destruction", which is a dreary propaganda phrase.) If America has evidence of these weapons it could produce it without compromising intelligence sources. Mr Bush and his staff keep announcing that Iraq possesses these things, yet refuse to give us proof.

Take Condoleeza Rice whose piece "Why we know Iraq is lying" appeared in the papers last week. She wrote that "Richard Butler, the former chief UN arms inspector, estimates that if a larger type of warhead that Iraq has made and used in the past were filled with VX (an even deadlier nerve agent) and launched at a major city, it could kill up to one million people." It is a classic ploy of the propagandist to link a respected figure with undeniable facts to produce an unverifiable but convincing shock-horror headline-grabber. We all know what could happen "if" a warhead "were" filled with VX and landed in a city. But nobody has shown us that there are operational warheads (as distinct from the dozen rusty 122mm carriers found two weeks ago), or that there is any VX to put in them, or any launchers to deliver them to "a city". These claims are made without evidence and used deliberately to mislead the American people.

Make no mistake: if it is determined by the UN that Iraq has one single nuclear weapon, or an operational long-range rocket, or a store of biological agents, or a stock of chemicals assessed by inspectors as being specifically for use as weapons, there will then be no doubt that Iraq will have violated Security Council Resolution 1441 and will have to take the consequences as decided by the Council. Under Chapter Seven of the UN Charter the Council can "take such action by air, sea or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security". There is, of course, one major proviso that has been ignored and will continue to be ignored by the United States, and that is Article 46, which states that "Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff committee". Fat chance of that happening. Nevertheless, if Iraq is proved to have any of these ghastly weapons (of which America has the largest stocks in the world), then it must pay the price.

But Ms Rice says, "Many questions remain" about Iraq's alleged NBC programmes, and "it is Iraq's obligation to provide answers". The question posed to Iraq was "Do you possess NBC weapons?" Iraq's answer is "No". If Iraq is lying (and it is difficult to imagine Mr Saddam Hussein telling the truth about the time of day) then let it be proved. Saying over and over again that Mr Hussein tells lies and therefore must have NBC weapons is not good enough. Ari Fleischer, the spokesman for Mr Bush, said on January 9, "We know for a fact that there are weapons there." OK: where are they? If it is known "for a fact" that there are weapons, then it must be known where they are. You can't identify something you can't see, unless you're getting decidedly metaphysical about worldly affairs. Just show us one nuclear device "" not even a bomb, just a thingy that is nuclear. Just show us one picture taken yesterday of a missile with an NBC warhead. Let us see evidence that there is a missile launcher ready to shoot off a missile that could "kill up to one million people". All right: we'll settle for a missile that could kill a thousand people. Produce evidence that Iraq has one vial of VX agent. Then we will say you were right, and watch you reduce Iraq to rubble.

http://www.counterpunch.org/cloughley01292003.html

Click to expand...

Oh, I think Iraq had WMDs. But I also think, months before the attack began, they saw the writing on the wall, and quietly snuck their WMDs into Syria, their neighbor, the only other Ba'athist state in the world. They didn't intend to use chemical weapons on the attacking troops [that would have quite probably ensured American pre-emption would become standard doctrine for the international community], and they would LOVE to embarress GWB.

Looks like they succeeded.

Iraq had WMDs, don't get me wrong. But Iraq knew Bush couldn't prove it, so they decided to thumb it to Bush. And he let them.

Clinton would have done far better.

LovingTongue said:

This absolves Bush of his intelligence failures and misguided actions exactly how?


This absolves Bush of his intelligence failures and misguided actions exactly how?


This absolves Bush of his intelligence failures and misguided actions exactly how?


This absolves Bush of his intelligence failures and misguided actions exactly how?


This absolves Bush of his intelligence failures and misguided actions exactly how?


This absolves Bush of his intelligence failures and misguided actions exactly how?


This absolves Bush of his intelligence failures and misguided actions exactly how?


This absolves Bush of his intelligence failures and misguided actions exactly how?


This absolves Bush of his intelligence failures and misguided actions exactly how?


This absolves Bush of his intelligence failures and misguided actions exactly how?


This absolves Bush of his intelligence failures and misguided actions exactly how?


This absolves Bush of his intelligence failures and misguided actions exactly how?


This absolves Bush of his intelligence failures and misguided actions exactly how?


This absolves Bush of his intelligence failures and misguided actions exactly how?


This absolves Bush of his intelligence failures and misguided actions exactly how?


This absolves Bush of his intelligence failures and misguided actions exactly how?


This absolves Bush of his intelligence failures and misguided actions exactly how?


This absolves Bush of his intelligence failures and misguided actions exactly how?


This absolves Bush of his intelligence failures and misguided actions exactly how?


This absolves Bush of his intelligence failures and misguided actions exactly how?

You know, when you have to retreat so far as to suggest that a President blame other people's booboos for not checking his facts himself before committing troops to war, you've really hit zero-integrity pay dirt.

Click to expand...

I'm not absolving anyone or retreating. My point was that Bush got the same intelligence everyone else got. He did check his "facts," just like everyone else who was quoted. Do you expect him to parachute into Iraq at midnight and check out suspected WMD plants under cover of darkness?
The facts are that everyone believed, for good reason, that Saddam had a continuing WMD program. That being the case, Bush is only guilty of taking action to end the threat.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No,

JazzManJim said:

You said, "It was only the imminent threat of danger that got Bush the support he needed".

The President did not say the threat was imminent. What he said, in the 2003 State of the Union was, "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?"

That's pretty clear. I'm not spinning. I'm pointing out that he never said what his critics attribute to him. It's their spin I'm disproving.

Click to expand...

But his comments clearly showed Iraqi WMDs to be a clear and present [if not IMMEDIATELY hazardous] danger. That is, he, in that very quote you give, for instance, declared that, barring American intervention, Iraqi WMDs would inevitably become a threat to the US.

A true statement--but, unforunately for Bush, one he had no evidence to support.

Since he couldn't prove it, he had Karl Rove make evidence up. Even evidence the CIA specifically investigated and refuted, Bush penned into the SotU. It isn't the Iraqi casualties--it's the LYING for which he should be impeached.

Ham Murabi said:

I'm not absolving anyone or retreating. My point was that Bush got the same intelligence everyone else got. He did check his "facts," just like everyone else who was quoted. Do you expect him to parachute into Iraq at midnight and check out suspected WMD plants under cover of darkness?
The facts are that everyone believed, for good reason, that Saddam had a continuing WMD program. That being the case, Bush is only guilty of taking action to end the threat.

Click to expand...

No, he is guilty of not doing his own leg work to verify these claims.

Jesus H Christ what ever happened to the great Libertarian/Republican values of "taking personal responsibility for one's actions"?

You'd have a heart attack if I blamed someone else for the plight of the poor...er, wait, you already do.

Ham Murabi said:

I'm not absolving anyone or retreating. My point was that Bush got the same intelligence everyone else got. He did check his "facts," just like everyone else who was quoted. Do you expect him to parachute into Iraq at midnight and check out suspected WMD plants under cover of darkness?
The facts are that everyone believed, for good reason, that Saddam had a continuing WMD program. That being the case, Bush is only guilty of taking action to end the threat.

Click to expand...

Except that, in the case of the Nigerian uranium claim, the CIA had already SPECIFICALLY investigated, and UTTERLY refuted the 'evidence'--a clear forgery--a year before it went into the SotU. In this instance, Bush DID check his facts--and when they turned up wrong, he used them anyway!

ubertroll said:

Except that, in the case of the Nigerian uranium claim, the CIA had already SPECIFICALLY investigated, and UTTERLY refuted the 'evidence'--a clear forgery--a year before it went into the SotU. In this instance, Bush DID check his facts--and when they turned up wrong, he used them anyway!

Click to expand...

When that story came out from Wilson is when the Valerie Plame disclosure from Robert Novak hit the press. That investigation is ongoing, but allegations have always been directed toward senior WH officials and thought to be political retribution for his honesty.

heres a good article on the "imminent threat" debate.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9143

Ham Murabi said:

I'm not absolving anyone or retreating. My point was that Bush got the same intelligence everyone else got. He did check his "facts," just like everyone else who was quoted. Do you expect him to parachute into Iraq at midnight and check out suspected WMD plants under cover of darkness?
The facts are that everyone believed, for good reason, that Saddam had a continuing WMD program. That being the case, Bush is only guilty of taking action to end the threat.

Click to expand...

But that threat apparently didn't exist at the time we went to war, which is the ONLY time that's relevant to this discussion. Few deny that Iraq had such weapons in the past. I certainly don't. The questions still remain, though: did they have them at the time we went to war?, and if not, did the administration know that?

I honestly don't know the answer to either question, but as time goes on, the answer to the first appears to be "no", while the second question still remains to be answered, though unfortunately probably never will be.

why was Clinton impeached for lying about getting head, while Bush hasn't been even though he lied about sending us to war?
why do we have a President who actually has to make the claim that "I take full responsibulity for the words that come out of my mouth"?

sigh said:

But that threat apparently didn't exist at the time we went to war, which is the ONLY time that's relevant to this discussion. Few deny that Iraq had such weapons in the past. I certainly don't. The questions still remain, though: did they have them at the time we went to war?, and if not, did the administration know that?

I honestly don't know the answer to either question, but as time goes on, the answer to the first appears to be "no", while the second question still remains to be answered, though unfortunately probably never will be.

Click to expand...

my favorite Hans Blix quote:
"It is inconceivable to me that an administration can be so certain as to the existence of stockpiles of illegal weapons, and yet have absolutely no idea where they are."

funspirit said:

my favorite Hans Blix quote:
"It is inconceivable to me that an administration can be so certain as to the existence of stockpiles of illegal weapons, and yet have absolutely no idea where they are."

Click to expand...

I'm rather fond of this one by Ari Fleischer:

"I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are."

sigh said:

I'm rather fond of this one by Ari Fleischer:

"I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are."

Click to expand...

priceless.

I saw Bush's address on television.

He told the American public that Iraq was a potential threat due to WMD. His people have said over and over that they will eventually be found - and so has he. In plain language.

If none are found, there is no amount of spin that'll fix it; the press will have his ass. If you'd like to blame the "Liberal media" for that, fine - makes no difference. But the story is already told: the president needed a cementing reason to go to war. He gave it. So far, it's not holding water.

To point attention elsewhere, our little Texan cowboy will announce next week that we're going to the moon in 2018. He probably thinks it's the first time we've been there.

I know this one is lengthy, but I thought it would be best to post it's entirety. This is a speech given to address many of the controversial issues that have not gone away.




October 10, 2002

"Confused Justifications and Vague Proposals"
Why I Oppose Bush's Iraq War Resolution
by SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD
(text of a speech on the Senate floor, delivered October 9, 2002)

Many of us have spent months reviewing the issue of the advisability of invading Iraq in the near future. From hearings and meetings on the process and the very important role of Congress to the difficult questions of substance, including foreign policy and military implications, after my own review and carefully listening to hundreds of Wisconsin citizens in person, I spoke on the floor on Thursday, September 26, and, Mr. President, I indicated my opposition to the original draft use of force authorization by the President, and I also used that opportunity to raise some very important questions, to which I needed answers before supporting a narrower and more responsible resolution.

Now, after many more meetings and reading articles and attending briefings, listening to my colleagues' speeches, and especially listening to the President's speech in Cincinnati on Monday, Mr. President, I still don't believe that the President and the Administration have adequately answered the critical questions. They have not yet met the important burden to persuade Congress and the American people that we should invade Iraq at this time.

Both in terms of the justifications for an invasion and in terms of the mission and the plan for the invasion, Mr. President, the Administration's arguments just don't add up. They don't add up to a coherent basis for a new major war in the middle of our current challenging fight against the terrorism of al Qaeda and related organizations. Therefore, I cannot support the resolution for the use of force before us.

My colleagues, my focus today is on the wisdom of this specific resolution vis-a-vis Iraq, as opposed to discussing the notion of an expanded doctrine of preemption, which the President has articulated on several occasions. However, I associate myself with the concerns eloquently raised by Senator Kennedy and Senator Byrd and others that this could well represent a disturbing change in our overall foreign and military policy. This includes grave concerns about what such a preemption-plus policy will do to our relationship with our allies, to our national security, and to the cause of world peace in so many regions of the world, where such a doctrine could trigger very dangerous actions with really very minimal justification.

Mr. President, I want to be clear about something. None of this is to say that I don't agree with the President on much of what he has said about the fight against terrorism and even what he has said about Iraq. I agree post-9/11, we face, as the President has said, a long and difficult fight against terrorism and we must be very patient and very vigilant and we must be ready to act and make some very serious sacrifices. And with regard to Iraq, I agree that Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the President argues. And I agree, I support the concept of regime change. Saddam Hussein is one of several despots from the international community -- whom the international community should condemn and isolate with the hope of new leadership in those nations. And, yes, I agree, if we do this Iraq invasion, I hope Saddam Hussein will actually be removed from power this time.

And I agree, therefore, Mr. President, we cannot do nothing with regard to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. We must act. We must act with serious purpose and stop the weapons of mass destruction and stop Saddam Hussein. And I agree a return to the inspections regime of the past alone is not a serious, credible policy.

I also believe and agree as important and as preferable as U.N. action and multilateral solutions to this problem are, we cannot give the United Nations the ability to veto our ability to counter this threat to our country. We retain and will always retain the right of self-defense, including, of course, self-defense against weapons of mass destruction. When such a threat requiring self-defense would present itself -- and I am skeptical that that is exactly what we're dealing with here -- then we can, if necessary, act alone, including militarily.

So, Mr. President, these are all areas where I agree with the Administration.

But, Mr. President, I am increasingly troubled by the seemingly shifting justifications for an invasion at this time. My colleagues, I'm not suggesting there has to be only one justification for such a dramatic action. But when the Administration moves back and forth from one argument to another, I think it undercuts the credibility of the case and the belief in its urgency. I believe that this practice of shifting justifications has much to do with the troubling phenomenon of many Americans questioning the Administration's motives in insisting on action at this particular time.

What am I talking about? I'm talking about the spectacle of the President and senior Administration officials citing a purported connection to al Qaeda one day, weapons of mass destruction the next day, Saddam Hussein's treatment of his own people on another day, and then on some days the issue of Kuwaiti prisoners of war.

Mr. President, for some of these, we may well be willing to send some 250,000 Americans in harm's way. For others, frankly, probably not. These litanies of various justifications -- whether the original draft resolution, the new White House resolution, or regrettably throughout the President's speech in Cincinnati -- in my view set the bar for an alternative to a U.S. invasion so high that, Mr. President, I'm afraid it almost locks in -- it almost requires -- a potentially extreme and reckless solution to these problems.

I am especially troubled by these shifting justifications because I and most Americans strongly support the President on the use of force in response to the attacks on September 11, 2001. I voted for Senate Joint Resolution 23, the use of force resolution, to go after al Qaeda and the Taliban and those associated with the tragedies of September 11. And I strongly support military actions pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 23.

But the relentless attempt to link 9-11 and the issue of Iraq has been disappointing to me for months, culminating in the President's singularly unpersuasive attempt in Cincinnati to interweave 9-11 and Iraq, to make the American people believe that there are no important differences between the perpetrators of 9-11 and Iraq.

Mr. President, I believe it is dangerous for the world, and especially dangerous for us, to take the tragedy of 9-11 and the word "terrorism" and all their powerful emotion and then too easily apply them to many other situations -- situations that surely need our serious attention but are not necessarily, Mr. President, the same as individuals and organizations who have shown a willingness to fly planes into the World Trade Center and into the Pentagon.

Let me say that the President is right that we've got to view the world, the threats and our own national security in a very different light since 9-11. There are shocking new threats. But, Mr. President, it is not helpful to use virtually any strand or extreme rhetoric to suggest that the new threat is the same as other preexisting threats. Mr. President, I think common sense tells us they are not the same and they cannot so easily be lumped together as the President sought to do in Cincinnati.

Mr. President, I've reviewed the intermittent efforts to suggest a connection of 9-11 and Saddam Hussein or suggest the possibility that such a connection has developed since 9-11. Let me be very clear. If in fact there was a connection in planning together for the 9-11 attack by Saddam Hussein or his agents and the perpetrators of 9-11 and al Qaeda, I've already voted for military action. I have no objection.

But if it is not, if this is premised on some case that has supposedly been made with regard to a subsequent coalition between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government, I think the President has got to do better. He's got to do better than the shoddy piecing together of flimsy evidence that contradicts the very briefings we've received by various agencies, Mr. President.

I'm not hearing the same things at the briefings that I'm hearing from the President's top officials. In fact, on March 11 of this year, Vice President Cheney, following a meeting with Tony Blair, raised fears of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists. He said, "We have to be concerned about the potential" -- potential -- "marriage, if you will, between a terrorist organization like al Qaeda and those who hold or are proliferating knowledge about weapons of mass destruction." So in March, it was a potential marriage.

Then the Vice-President said, on September 8, without evidence -- and no evidence has been given since that time -- that there are "credible but unconfirmed" intelligence reports that 9-11 ringleader Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official several months before 9-11. We've seen no proof of that.

And finally then, the Secretary of Defense follows on September 27 of this year and says, "There is bulletproof evidence of Iraqi links to al Qaeda, including the recent presence of senior al Qaeda members in Baghdad." I don't know where this comes from, Mr. President. This so-called potential marriage in March is beginning to sound like a 25th wedding anniversary at this point.

The facts just aren't there, or at least they have not been presented to me in the situations where they should have been presented to me as an elected Member of this body. In other words, the Administration appears to use 9-11 and the language of terrorism and the connection to Iraq too loosely, almost like a bootstrap.

For example, I heard the President say in Cincinnati that Iraq and al Qaeda both regard us as a common enemy. Of course they do. Well, who else are we going to attack in the near future on that basis alone?

Or do we see an attempt to stretch the notion of harboring terrorists? I agree with the President, if any country is actively harboring or assisting the terrorists involved in 9-11, we have to act against them. But I don't think you can bring within the definition of harboring terrorists the simple presence of some al Qaeda members somewhere in Iraq. After all, Mr. President, apparently we have al Qaeda agents active in our country as well. They are present in our nation as well. How can this be a sufficient basis on its own?

Therefore, Mr. President, without a better case for al Qaeda's connection to Saddam Hussein, this proposed invasion must stand on its own merits, not on some notion that those who question this invasion don't thoroughly condemn and want to see the destruction of the perpetrators of 9-11 and similar terrorist attacks on the United States.

An invasion of Iraq must stand on its own, not just because it is different than the fight against the perpetrators of 9-11 but because it may not be consistent with, and may even be harmful to, the top national security issue of this country. And that is the fight against terrorism and the perpetrators of the crimes of 9-11.

In fact, I'm so pleased to see one of the most eloquent spokesmen of this viewpoint here in the Senate chamber, Senator Graham, who has done a terrific job of trying to point out our top priorities in this area. He said, "Our first priority should be the successful completion of the war on terrorism. Today we Americans are more vulnerable to international terrorist organizations than we are to Saddam Hussein."

I ask: Is this war against terrorism going so terribly well when we see the possible explosion of the French tanker in Yemen? When we see the tremendous difficulties in trying to pursue stability in Afghanistan itself? And when we realize that we're not certain at all whether Mr. Osama bin Laden is alive or dead? Will the invasion of Iraq encourage our allies and Islamic friends to help us in the fight against terrorism or just make them extremely nervous?

Mr. President, I had a meeting with a group of African ambassadors the other day in my role as Chairman of the Africa Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee, and they told me that various people were placing bets -- placing bets on what country would be next after Iraq under this new doctrine that the President is putting forward.

Will this idea of invading Iraq at this time, on this case, on these merits, help or hurt cooperation in our fight against terrorism, against the known murderers of Americans who are known to be plotting more of the same?

Mr. President, I'm especially dismayed at the weak response to the potential drain on our military capability and resources in our fight against terrorism if we go forward with this invasion at this time. The Administration likes to quickly say, whenever asked whether we can do this and fight the war against terrorism, they just simply say, "we can do both." There's no proof, there's no real assurance of this. I find these answers glib, at best.

When former Secretary of State Kissinger was asked in this regard, he said, "It is not clear to me what measures that are required in the war against terrorism would be interrupted or weakened by the actions that may be imposed on us if it is not possible to do away with the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq by other means." That's the only explanation the former Secretary of State gave us on this tough question.

But let's look at what the current Secretary of State, Colin Powell, said in response to a similar question. He said, "So the campaign against terrorism is going in full swing. And I don't see why there is a suggestion that somehow, if we had to undertake this mission, it would be at the expense of the campaign against terrorism." That is all he said. Now, that is a pretty weak reassurance, to me, that such an enormous undertaking will not call into question some of our other military efforts and priorities.

What about what we are doing in Bosnia? What about what we are doing in Kosovo? What about all the resources stretching from the Philippines to portions of the former Soviet Union to the Middle East to parts of Africa that are being employed in the fight against terrorism? What about the fact that we are using our National Guard and Reserves many times within our country to protect our own citizens and public -- at public events with regard to the challenge of the fight against terrorism? Mr. President, all of this and an invasion of Iraq, too? I wonder. As mighty as we are, I wonder if we aren't very close to being overextended.

An invasion of Iraq in the next few weeks or months could in fact be very counterproductive. In fact, it could risk our national security.

In any event, I oppose this resolution because of the continuing unanswered questions, including the very important questions about what the mission is here, what the nature of the operation will be, what will happen concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as the attack proceeds and afterward, and what the plan is after the attack is over. In effect, Mr. President, we're being asked to vote on something that is unclear. We don't have answers to these questions. We're being asked to vote on something that is almost unknowable in terms of the information we've been given.

In my judgment, the issue that presents the greatest potential threat to U.S. national security, Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, has not been addressed in any comprehensive way by the Administration to date. Of course, I know that we don't need to know all the details, and we don't have to be given all the details, and we shouldn't be given all the details. But we've got to be given some kind of a reasonable explanation. Before we vote on this resolution, we need a credible plan for securing <W.M.D>. sites and not allowing materials of concern to slip away during some chaotic course of action. I know that's a tall order, but, Mr. President, it's a necessary demand.

As I said, I agree with the Administration when it asserts that returning to the same restricted weapons inspection regime of the recent past is not a credible policy for addressing the <W.M.D>. problem in Iraq. But, Mr. President, there is nothing credible about the we'll-figure-that-out-later approach that we've heard to date. What if actors competing for power in a post-Hussein world have access to <W.M.D>.? What if there is chaos in the wake of the regime's fall that provides new opportunities for nonstate actors, including terrorist organizations, to bid on the sinister items tucked away in Iraq?

Some would say those who do not unquestionly support the Administration are failing to provide for our national security. But, Mr. President, I'm sure of this. These issues are critical to that security, and I have yet to get any answers.

Mr. President, we need an honest assessment of the commitment required of America. If the right way to address this threat is through internationally-supported military action in Iraq and Saddam Hussein's regime falls, we will need to take action to ensure stability in Iraq. This could be very costly and time consuming, could involve the occupation -- the occupation, Mr. President, of a Middle Eastern country. Now, this is not a small matter. The American occupation of a Middle Eastern country. Consider the regional implications of that scenario, the unrest in moderate states that calls for action against American interests, the difficulty of bringing stability to Iraq so we can extricate ourselves in the midst of regional turmoil. Mr. President, we need much more information about how we propose to proceed so that we can weigh the costs and benefits to our national security.

In Afghanistan, the government and President Hamid Karzai work under constant threat and instability plagues the country outside of Kabul. Many Afghan people are waiting for concrete indicators that they have a stake in this new Taliban-free future. The task is daunting. Mr. President, we've only just begun that task. What demands might be added in a post-Saddam Iraq?

I do believe that the American people are willing to bear high costs to pursue a policy that makes sense. But right now, after all of the briefings, all of the hearings, and all of the statements, as far as I can tell, the Administration apparently intends to wing it when it comes to the day after or, as others have suggested, the decade after. And I think, Mr. President, that makes no sense at all.

So, Mr. President, I believe that to date the Administration has failed to answer the key questions to justify the invasion of Iraq at this time. Yes, September 11 raises the emotional stakes and raises legitimate new questions. This makes the President's request understandable, but it doesn't make it wise.

I am concerned that the President is pushing us into a mistaken and counterproductive course of action. Instead of this war being crucial on the war on terrorism, I fear it could have the opposite effect.

And so this moment -- in which we are responsible for assessing the threat before us, the appropriate response, and the potential costs and consequences of military action -- this moment is of grave importance. Yet there is something hollow in our efforts. In all of the Administration's public statements, its presentations to Congress, and its exhortations for action, Congress is urged to provide this authority and approve the use of our awesome military power in Iraq without knowing much at all about what we intend to do with it.

We are about to make one of the weightiest decisions of our time within a context of confused justifications and vague proposals. We are urged, Mr. President, to get on board and bring the American people with us, but we don't know where the ship is sailing.

On Monday night, the President said in Cincinnati, "We refuse to live in fear." I agree, but let us not overreact or get tricked or get trapped out of fear either.

Mr. President, on the 11th of September, 2001, our country came under attack and the world suddenly seemed shockingly small and unquestionably dangerous. What followed that horror continued to be frightening and disorienting -- anthrax attacks, color-coded threat levels, report after report of terrorist cells seemingly everywhere. In the weeks and months since September 11, Americans have had to contend with these changes and to come to grips with the reality that this could happen again, that there are forces planning to do us harm, and that we cannot unconditionally guarantee our own safety. In this new world, we cannot help but sense that the future is uncertain, that our world is disordered, unpredictable, up for grabs.

So when our leaders propose taking action, Americans do not want to resist. But they are resisting this vague and worrisome proposal, Mr. President.

My constituents have voiced their concerns in calls, at town meetings, in letters and through e-mail or with faxes. They aren't calling for Congress to bury our heads in the sand. They are not naively suggesting that Saddam Hussein is somehow misunderstood. But they are asking questions that bear directly on our national security, and they are looking for answers, Mr. President, that make sense. They are setting the standard, Mr. President, just as they should do in a great democracy. Their standard is high. We should work together to develop a policy toward Iraq that meets it.

Russ Feingold is a senator from Wisconsin.
http://www.counterpunch.org/feingold1010.html