Clinton Calls Impeachment Egregious Abuse

[Bruzilla]

I never stop being amazed at how easily Dems like CK can suspend reality to try to make a point. We know Hussein had WMDs well into the 1990s. After Desert Storm two issues arise: First, Hussein's conventional forces have been decimated, most of his air force has been repainted with the markings of the Iranian Air Force, and Hussien has pissed off most every one of his neighbors. Understanding that Hussein has been a raging paranoid for most of his life, what in heaven's name makes anyone think he would have disposed of the only weapons he had that ensured his survival? Also, as long as Hussin had those weapons, the UN sanctions would remian in place; and as long as the sanctions were in place, Hussein didn't have to pay a penny in billions of dollars of agreed-to war reparations to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc., while he still makes millions off the oil-for-food program and back-door oil sales. For him to destroy his WMDs would be total foolishness.

Now we go into Iraq and we're told that the weapons have been destroyed, yet there's no trace evidence at most of the destruction sites. You destroy bio agents, there's going be DNA left. Destroy chemical weapons and there's all kids of trace elements left behind. Yet there are few documentable cases of anything being found, which means the weapons are still intact. So if they're not in Iraq, where are they? In 1992, Hussein trusted the Iranians and sent his air force to them for safekeeping, only to be told "finders keepers" after the war and never see his planes again. So, it's very unlikely he would trust the Iranians a second time. Which brings us to Syria, the most likely location.

So to sum up, just because there weren't weapons in Iraq when we got there doesn't mean that they weren't there before we arrived, or never were there in the first place. While any ten year old can figure that out, it doesn't support the contentions of Democrats so they ignore it.

 

[vraiblonde]

I never stop being amazed at how easily Dems like CK can suspend reality to try to make a point.

Really? Even after all this time?

 

[SamSpade]

Really? Even after all this time?

I can. I was in a religious cult for years; I know all about ignoring the obvious, because leaders you trust tell you who to believe, and who to ignore. I know all about watching leaders do and say outrageous things, and people STILL follow them. And I've striven never to repeat the same kind of behavior, never really falling into it in the first place - about halfway through my nine-year ordeal, I began to question everything openly, and I was persona non grata for a long time, until I left. I've seen the glassy eyed look, the cult of personality, the hero worship - and the *utter* disdain for anything resembling dissent.

In a cult, if someone says "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" - you *don't*. If someone says bad things about issues or persons you believe in, you remove yourself from them - they're the enemy.


I see the same behavior in lunatics who think the Pentagon was never attacked, that 9/11 was orchestrated by Bush, that all of this was a grand scheme to get oil (which frankly, astonishes me - I mean, even if true, cannot people SEE the horror that was Saddam Hussein?). I also see the same behavior in the religious right and it scares me - I'm conservative, but I don't worship anyone on the right - I've *been* there before.

 

[Bustem' Down]

So let's just say....a hypothetical question....What if incontrovertible evidence came out that said Iraq never did have WMD's. Where does that put us? I'm just curious to see the answers.


Once again, this is hypothetical.


Please don't flame me.

 

[SamSpade]

So let's just say....a hypothetical question....What if incontrovertible evidence came out that said Iraq never did have WMD's. Where does that put us? I'm just curious to see the answers.


Once again, this is hypothetical.


Please don't flame me.

It'd have to be hypothetical. There is absolutely incontrovertible evidence that they had them all through the 80's and early 90's. Lots of them. *USED* them. That's why UNSCOM was formed in the first place.

 

[Bustem' Down]

It'd have to be hypothetical. There is absolutely incontrovertible evidence that they had them all through the 80's and early 90's. Lots of them. *USED* them. That's why UNSCOM was formed in the first place.

So, what "if" he had actually gotten rid of them all and some how cleaned up the mess.

 

[vraiblonde]

So, what "if" he had actually gotten rid of them all and some how cleaned up the mess.

If that were the case, he'd have proved it before he had to go hide in a hole.

BUT let's say some miracle occurs and Glinda the Good sends down irrefutable proof that Saddam destroyed ALL his weapons and dismantled ALL his programs, AND actually used the oil for food money on food.

(Keep in mind that this would be a hell of a miracle because it's already been proven that he had weapons, programs were still in operation when we invaded - we find new sites practically every day - AND the oil for food money lined UN officials' pockets. But anyway...)

IF that miracle did occur, we would - what? Release Saddam? Let him go back to torturing and killing those that disagree with him? Give the rape rooms a new paint job and some comfy furniture and say we're sorry? Tell the Iraqis, "Sorry Charlie - your elections are now null and void. You better get started rebuilding all those Saddam statues."?

What would you suggest?

 

[SamSpade]

So, what "if" he had actually gotten rid of them all and some how cleaned up the mess.

Ok - IF that were so - it wouldn't change a lot. It's somewhat unlikely, given the unbelievable stalling tactics he used (you should read the timeline over at Wikipedia - I had no idea what crap he used to pull). Why stall if the whole point is to prove you don't have them, and lift the embargo?

But the reason I say it would not change much is what is mentioned in the Iraqi War Resolution - he had well supplied and financed programs to develop WMD's and the will and means to distribute them. THIS much, at least, *has* been found. If he did get rid of them, he had the means to make them again in large quantities.

This is the reason the Israelis bombed his nuclear reactor back in the 80's - it's not enough to get rid of his bombs - get rid of his *reactor* - and he has almost no way of *making* them.

Saddam did have extensive contact with other terrorists, such as the PKK. He supplied support for Palestinian terror.

This was a state, supporting terrorists. We all clapped on September 20, 2001 when Bush declared a global war on terror - that the United States would seek to eliminate all terrorists with a global reach.

Eliminating WMD's *was* a concern for entering the war - but it's like saying we went to war in 1775 as revenge for Lexington/Concord or the Boston Massacre. It's a *lot* more than that. We had to remove a man from power who had the means and the will to spread terror throughout the world, and bragged that he could do it.

What disturbs me is that, had we *waited* for them to commit another act of terror, we'd STILL be hearing the same people railing against the White House - except that they'd be questioning why something wasn't done about it, just as they currently question why 9/11 wasn't prevented.

 

[vraiblonde]

I know what let's do! Let's discuss what would happen if all the stories over the years about Saddam's brutalization, executions and what have you weren't true - just made up by journalists and Iraq-haters.

What if the Kuwait invasion never happened? And the UN just made sanctions against Iraq because they felt like it? Maybe they had it in for him for some reason and set him up?

Since we're talking about extreme hypotheticals here - shoot, we can go just about anywhere with it, can't we?

 

[Bustem' Down]

I know what let's do! Let's discuss what would happen if all the stories over the years about Saddam's brutalization, executions and what have you weren't true - just made up by journalists and Iraq-haters.

What if the Kuwait invasion never happened? And the UN just made sanctions against Iraq because they felt like it? Maybe they had it in for him for some reason and set him up?

Since we're talking about extreme hypotheticals here - shoot, we can go just about anywhere with it, can't we?

Vrai, your no fun. I just wanted to see what answers came up. Liberals claim all of that, but I never here what the solution is. Wondering what ya'lls solution would be. Stretch your mind Vrai!

 

[vraiblonde]

Stretch your mind Vrai!

I'm not mentally ill - my mind doesn't stretch like that.

 

[Penn]

Anybody noticed this article?

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bennett200511141541.asp

Looks like Sen. Jay Rockefeller told the nations of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria - that in his view, President Bush had already made up his mind to invade Iraq.

Haven't we heard that many of Saddam's weapons, chemical/biological, who knows what else - may well have been shipped out to Syria before the invasion started?
How much time did Sen. Rockefeller afford Saddam, to make those weapons vanish, before they could have been discovered?

 

[vraiblonde]

Looks like Sen. Jay Rockefeller told the nations of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria - that in his view, President Bush had already made up his mind to invade Iraq.

Who cares? If it "came out" that Bush had decided to invade Iraq before he was even elected, that's fine with me.

If it "came out" that the only reason Bush ran for President in the first place was to invade Iraq, I would be perfectly okay with that.

 

[Penn]

Who cares? If it "came out" that Bush had decided to invade Iraq before he was even elected, that's fine with me.

If it "came out" that the only reason Bush ran for President in the first place was to invade Iraq, I would be perfectly okay with that.

I hear what you're saying.

However, if this Senator gave just one nation - Syria - this information, what impact did it have - not only in hiding Saddam's weapons, but also undermining the conduct of this war?

I think, as we are writing these posts, Iraqi troops, along with our own forces, are are conducting raids along the border between Iraq and Syria. The Intel folks have know for quite a while insurgents have been coming through Syria, to disrupt the regime change there.

Just what did this Senators revelation set in motion?

 

[Ken King]

To hell with hypothetical, just look at the facts in the following timeline;

September, 1997 - Iraq provides more information on its prohibited biological weapons programs.

September 25, 1997 - UNSCOM inspects an Iraqi "food laboratory". One of the inspectors, Dr. Diane Seaman, enters the building through the back door and catches several men running out with suitcases. The suitcases contained log books for the creation of illegal bacteria and chemicals. The letterhead comes from the president's office and from the Special Security Office (SSO). UNSCOM attempts to inspect the SSO headquarters but is blocked.

October, 1997 - UNSCOM destroys large quantities of illegal chemical weapons and related equipment. Iraq admitted that some of this equipment had been used to produce VX gas in May, 1997.

December 22, 1997 - The UN Security Council issues a statement calling on Iraq to cooperate fully with the commission and says that failure by Iraq to provide immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any site is an unacceptable and clear violation of Security Council resolutions.

February, 1998 - US President Bill Clinton remarks "(Hussein's) regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us. Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. Let there be no doubt, we are prepared to act." Senate Democrats also passed Resolution 71, which urged President Clinton to "take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

April 8, 1998 - UNSCOM reports to the UN Security Council that Iraq's declaration on its biological weapons program is incomplete and inadequate.

Spring, 1998 - An UNSCOM inspection team discovers a dump full of destroyed Iraqi missiles. Analysis of the missile parts proves that Iraq had made a weapon containing VX.

July, 1998 - UNSCOM discovers documents, at Iraqi Air Force headquarters, showing that Iraq overstated by at least 6,000 the number of chemical bombs it told the U.N. it had used during the Iran-Iraq War. These bombs remain unaccounted for.

August, 2002 - According to U.S. Intelligence, China, with help from France and Syria, has secretly sold to Iraq the prohibited chemical hydroxy terminated polybutadiene, or HTPB, which is used in making solid fuel for long-range missiles. France denies that the sale took place. U.S. intelligence traces the sale back to China's Qilu Chemicals company in Shandong province. The chemical sale involved a French company known as CIS Paris, which helped broker the sale of 20 tons of HTPB, which was then shipped from China to the Syrian port of Tartus. The chemicals were then shipped by truck from Syria into Iraq to a missile manufacturing plant.

November 8, 2002 - The UN Council votes unanimously for resolution 1441, the 17th Iraq disarmament resolution passed by the council, calling for immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq. The resolution also demands that Iraq declare all weapons of mass destruction to the council, and account for its known chemical weapons material stockpiles.

December 7, 2002 - Iraq files a 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN in order to meet requirements of resolution 1441. UN weapons inspectors, the UN security council and the U.S. feel that this declaration fails to account for all of Iraq's chemical and biological agents.

December 19, 2002 - UNMOVIC Chairman Hans Blix tells UNSC members that the Iraqi weapons declaration filed on December 7 "is essentially a reorganized version" of information Iraq provided UNSCOM in 1997, and that it "is not enough to create confidence" that Iraq has abandoned its WMD efforts.

January 27, 2003 - Chairmen of the inspections effort report to the UN Security Council that, while Iraq has provided some access to facilities, concerns remain regarding undeclared material; inability to interview Iraqi scientists; inability to deploy aerial surveillance during inspections; and harassment of weapons inspectors.

February 7, 2003 - The chief United Nations arms inspector Hans Blix says Iraq appears to be making fresh efforts to cooperate with U.N. teams hunting weapons of mass destruction, while Washington says the "momentum is building" for war with Iraq.

February 13, 2003 - A UN panel reports that Iraq's al-Samoud 2 missiles, disclosed by Iraq to weapons inspectors in December, have a range of 180 km (above the 150 km limit allowed by the UN), splitting opinion over whether they breach UNSCR 1441.

February 14, 2003 - UNMOVIC chief weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei present their second report to the United Nations Security Council. They state that the Iraqis have been co-operating well with the inspectors and that no weapons of mass destruction have been found, but that the Saddam Hussein government had still to account for many banned weapons believed to have been in his arsenal.

February 26, 2003 - Hans Blix states that Iraq still has not made a "fundamental decision" to disarm, despite recent signs of increased cooperation. Specifically, Iraq has refused to destroy its al-Samoud 2 long range missiles - a weapon system that was in violation of the UN Security Council's resolutions and the US treaty with Iraq. These missiles are deployed and mobile. Also, an R-400 aerial bomb was found that could possibly contain biological agents. Given this find, the UN Inspectors have requested access to the Al-Aziziyah weapons range to verify that all 155 R-400 bombs can be accounted for and proven destroyed. Blix also expresses skepticism over Iraq's claims to have destroyed its stockpiles of anthrax and VX nerve agent in Time magazine. Blix said he found it "a bit odd" that Iraq, with "one of the best-organized regimes in the Arab world," would claim to have no records of the destruction of these illegal substances. "I don't see that they have acquired any credibility," Blix said

 

[Penn]

Excellent timeline information update, Ken. I remember reading much of that, or seeing reports of it on the news.

"February 7, 2003 - The chief United Nations arms inspector Hans Blix says Iraq appears to be making fresh efforts to cooperate with U.N. teams hunting weapons of mass destruction, while Washington says the "momentum is building" for war with Iraq."


So, where did that bit of data come from? Somebody sneeze? Right around 2 weeks after Sen. Rockefeller revealed his thoughts to 3 Middle Eastern nations.

Coincidence?

 

[Ken King]

Excellent timeline information update, Ken. I remember reading much of that, or seeing reports of it on the news.

"February 7, 2003 - The chief United Nations arms inspector Hans Blix says Iraq appears to be making fresh efforts to cooperate with U.N. teams hunting weapons of mass destruction, while Washington says the "momentum is building" for war with Iraq."


So, where did that bit of data come from? Somebody sneeze? Right around 2 weeks after Sen. Rockefeller revealed his thoughts to 3 Middle Eastern nations.

Coincidence?

Psst, look at the date in the timeline and then read the quote from your link, "I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia." It's a little over a year apart so I would say not much of a coincidence.

 

[Penn]

Shoot, it was only a year!

(Nope you're right, my bad on this one.)

Britt Hume carried a segment(last night at 6:00pm) on Sen. Rockefeller's trip to the Mideast in 2002, so they seem to be investigating it further, ya think?