For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary September 7, 2002
President Bush, Prime Minister Blair Discuss Keeping the Peace Remarks by the President and Prime Minister Tony Blair in Photo Opportunity Camp David, Maryland
3:51 P.M. EDT
Q Mr. President, can you tell us what conclusive evidence of any nuclear -- new evidence you have of nuclear weapons capabilities of Saddam Hussein?
THE PRESIDENT: We just heard the Prime Minister talk about the new report. I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied -- finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic -- the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need.
this intel was presented as a report prepared that morning....
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 10, 2004).]
quote:Originally posted by glassman: that Koran thing is just the tip of the iceburg tho... this is why i am spending so much time on the subject..... read the New American Century web-site....
there were a LOT of conflicting Intel reports.... the ones that Bush presented to the congress and the Senate, and the UN are NOT the only ones....there were PLENTY of opposing views and the credibility of Bush's sources was called into question by quite a few people "in the know" the intel community is releasing documents showing that Bush has gone against the advice of quite a few of them...this is a clear sign to Bush and since they did it, he has looked very tentative....
posted
read these excerpts from his speech declaring war
For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary March 17, 2003
President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation The Cross Hall
8:01 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991. --------------------------------------- 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. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people ------------------------------------------------- Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council's long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.
-------------------------------------------- Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair notice, in formal declarations -- and responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.
Bush was plainly gambling his reputation here......he lost.....
the intel community was NOT 100% sure like he was...there were plenty of people who disagreed with the President..... that isn't flip-flopping......
the war is there, we can't change that. we have a job to do.... but the facts are the facts. this admin has mis-judged over and over again...
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 10, 2004).]
posted
it falls upon me once again to make excuses for Sadam...i don't like doing this, but he is a human...a nasty one no doubt, but still human....
consider this...
Saddam complied with UN sanctions...
the UN people had a good thing going....
when they all realised how much money they were making they decided to allow the stiuation to remain "stable".....
who wasn't getting the "grease"??????
that's not a very good reason to start a shooting war, it's a good reason to hold summit meeting.......
none of this makes any sense really.... unless a war became nessecary for other reasons......
Bush actually says NO DOUBT is left by the intel.......
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.
quote:Originally posted by glassman: it falls upon me once again to make excuses for Sadam...i don't like doing this, but he is a human...a nasty one no doubt, but still human....
consider this...
Saddam complied with UN sanctions...
the UN people had a good thing going....
when they all realised how much money they were making they decided to allow the stiuation to remain "stable".....
who wasn't getting the "grease"??????
that's not a very good reason to start a shooting war, it's a good reason to hold summit meeting.......
none of this makes any sense really.... unless a war became nessecary for other reasons......
Bush actually says NO DOUBT is left by the intel.......
[b]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.[/B]
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Well, it looks like you and I disagree on this. Sadam may not have had any weapons on hand. Nobody really knows. There was some time for him to move them out (however unlikely that may be). The point is he kept the ability to make the weapons. How have sanctions worked when as soon as they may be lifted (wich he was trying ot get done) they could be reproduced almost immediately? so in one sense (for the physical weapons) the resolutions did work. On the other hand (when it comes to the fact that he had the ability to make weapons and wanted to, from what I see and hear is very much agreed on) the resolutions did not work, cause as soon as it would have been all said and done, he still had the capacity to make them. Now ask the question, how can a man who gassed his own people, invaded the country next door to his, and has proven he has no respect for any form of life be left at a point where 12-14 years of resolutions changed nothing about that fact that he wanted weapons, was seeking them, and would have produced them again. There comes a point when you have to realize that this man was a continuing threat, and it was time to deal with him. The threat of sadam changed after 9/11. The is no doubt about it, the way every country looks at the world had to change. The threat is not only who has weaponns, but who has the ability, who has the want, and who has the materials. That is just the new reality of how threats must be looked at, and dealt with.
[This message has been edited by futuresobjective (edited October 11, 2004).]
posted
People in Iraq can either rely on other people to stabalize their country or start and soing for themselves for teh first time ever. Everyone agrees that things are not perfect over there. How can anyone say it is. But you can either help a country, gain their own sense of freedom, or hand it to them on a silver platter. The reality of it is if we sent thousands more troops over there nothing would be gained. These people have to take their future in their own hands, and increasingly that has been happening. In time, this method will work, IMVHO. People over there (I hope) are starting to realize that their neighbors who are fighting against freedom are killing their own people. In time they will be hated by the very people that support them now.
Posts: 1153 | From: northeast | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by futuresobjective: People in Iraq can either rely on other people to stabalize their country or start and soing for themselves for teh first time ever. Everyone agrees that things are not perfect over there. How can anyone say it is. But you can either help a country, gain their own sense of freedom, or hand it to them on a silver platter. The reality of it is if we sent thousands more troops over there nothing would be gained. These people have to take their future in their own hands, and increasingly that has been happening. In time, this method will work, IMVHO. People over there (I hope) are starting to realize that their neighbors who are fighting against freedom are killing their own people. In time they will be hated by the very people that support them now.
well futures objective, i sense you are beginnig to get a faint glimmer of understanding here..... yes, it is VERY curious that any of those idiots in Iraq would bother to fight US right now.... if you read thru my old posts, months ago, you would find me addressing that point...
the fighting only serves the WAR OF TERROR.... and quite frankly the war of terror has some very disturbing facts........
for instance, the longer they fight, the longer we stay in Iraq.....maybe FOREVER??????????
Sun Tzu lives..... The art of war, then, is governed by five constant factors, to be taken into account in one's deliberations, when seeking to determine the conditions obtaining in the field.
4. These are: (1) The Moral Law; (2) Heaven; (3) Earth; (4) The Commander; (5) Method and discipline.
The Moral Law causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger.
there are lots of possibilities BUT, you have two basic choices here....
the war in Iraq has gone more or less according to plan, which means we have invited the insurgency/terrorists-----
or it has been very badly mis-managed, in which case Bush chose to listen to the wrong advisors (at best).....
remember Abu Graihb??? isn't that the trigger that set off the violent insurgency??? threw gasoline on the embers, so to speak.....
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 11, 2004).]
quote:Originally posted by glassman: remember Abu Graihb??? isn't that the trigger that set off the violent insurgency??? threw gasoline on the embers, so to speak.....
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 11, 2004).]
Didn't exactly earn brownie points with the U.N. on that one.
posted
some naked people and dogs barking, what a shame.....maybe the u.n should worry about the sudan, what, can't oil contracts for china and japan. ok.
where else can we be useless....i know lets pay members of hamas to work for us.... thanks tax dollars.
Posts: 9110 | From: boston, ma | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
JERUSALEM A senior U.N. official in the Middle East has acknowledged that members of the Hamas terror group are working for his relief agency, touching off outrage in Israel.
"I am sure that there are Hamas members on the [U.N. Relief and Works Agency] payroll," said the agency's chief, Peter Hansen.
"And I don't see that as a crime," Hansen told the Canadian Broadcasting Corp.
The UNRWA is the humanitarian organization created specifically to aid Palestinian refugees.
Israel is demanding that the United Nations investigate Hansen's statements, and Canada has asked that his comments be clarified.
Hansen also charged that Israel was lying about another issue whether Gaza terrorists used a U.N. ambulance to transport homemade rockets.
On Friday, Israeli officials released a videotape showing what it said were militants transferring a Qassam rocket into an ambulance marked "U.N."
The United Nations, "which is supposed to keep the peace, is cynically used by murderers to transport Qassam rockets in U.N. vehicles," Israel's U.N. Ambassador, Dan Gillerman, told Israeli radio.
Yesterday, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan ordered an investigation into the charges, his office said.
Posts: 9110 | From: boston, ma | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
GO YANKEES (you earned that one Keith...LOL), i hate the damn yankees too.....
seriously, Abhu Ghraib is weird..... more sillinness.... MAYBE when they realised there were no WMD to parade in front of the UN and put on display on the White House Lawn, they realised we had better give everybody a reason to elevate the emotions...so they decided to humiliate a bunch of Iraqis so that the insurgency would speed up...... after all we ignored the ammo dumps in our rush to protect the oil feilds, and it still took them months to figure out that they had all the small arms they needed to start a small war......
posted
the naked body rolling was probably a little too much but, i'm all for pschological torture techniques.....
Posts: 9110 | From: boston, ma | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
