Originally Posted By planodisney Clinton was defintely attacked hard by the right. My point is that to say that the GOP does it more is ignoring tha facts. The Clinton machine attacked Obama with the drug issue in some dirty ways, sent out mailers in Nevada with his middle name in them, and had a strategyto have him marginalized as the "black candidate". It doesnt get dirtier than that.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Blix and the inspectors did, indeed, ask for more time. Go back and read the contemporary accounts. The general attitude by the UN was that Saddam was being willfully deceptive. The general belief was that Saddam had WMDs and was a threat to the region and the world. The memory disease that has been going on is that everyone knew then what we know now. I believe the Bush Administration did choose to believe the intelligence that bolstered their position. But I do not believe for a moment that they simply lied about the whole thing. That's the revisionist history. Here's Blix on NewsHour with Jim Lehrer in October, 2002 (seven months before the invasion): >>Hans Blix: ...Well, there's a vast amount of information available from the UNSCOM times; we may have something like 15,000 images from the various sites that the inspectors have visited, and we now -- JIM LEHRER: Excuse me. UNSCOM - that's during the earlier inspections back in 1991 and before. HANS BLIX: Yes. Up till the end of 1998. Since then of course there have been no inspections but we have satellite images for many places - from which we can see what have they repaired, what have they built up - and when we were in Vienna last week we received from the Iraqis a number of CD-ROMs, which will tell us what new dual use items there have been in facilities which were declared and also some new facilities, which UNSCOM never visited, so there will be a need for what we term "re-base lining"; that's they go into the facilities and see what has been changed in them. JIM LEHRER: Now what did the Iraqis -- on these CD-ROMs --they say, look, this is where we have weapons of mass destruction, we have plants or could make weapons of, what did, what's on there? HANS BLIX: There will be lots of factories in the chemical field, and there will be pharmaceutical industries, which could be used for dual use purposes. Of course, they deny that they have any weapons and they deny that they have further information. So we will analyze and see what from our present sources, see what questions can we put to them. We can have perhaps ask for interviews; we are also following what has been said in media, and other sources, which often get their material from intelligence organizations. And we may have information from governments too suggesting where we should go. They have come out lately with a number of suggestions. JIM LEHRER: So you will use intelligence information gathered by member states of the United Nations, right? HANS BLIX: If they're willing to provide it to us, yes, we have it; that's clearly in the mandate.<< <a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/iraq_10-9.html" target="_blank">http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb /middle_east/july-dec02/iraq_10-9.html</a> Here's part of Blix's statement to the UN, delivered just 12 days before the invasion: >>On 14 February, I reported to the council that the Iraqi side had become more active in taking and proposing steps which potentially might shed new light on unresolved disarmament issues. Even a week ago, when the current quarterly report was finalized, there were still relatively little tangible progress to note. Hence, the cautious formulations in the report before you. As of today, there is more. While during our meetings in Baghdad, the Iraqi side tried to persuade us that the Al Samoud 2 missiles they have declared fall within the permissible range set by the Security Council. The calculations of an international panel of experts led us to the opposite conclusion. Iraq has since accepted that these missiles and associated items be destroyed and has started the process of destruction under our supervision. The destruction undertaken constitutes a substantial measure of disarmament, indeed the first since the middle of the 1990s. We are not watching the breaking of toothpicks; lethal weapons are being destroyed. However, I must add that the report I have today tells me that no destruction work has continued today. I hope this is a temporary break. Until today, 34 Al Samoud 2 missiles, including four training missiles, two combat warheads, one launcher and five engines, have been destroyed under UNMOVIC's supervision. Work is continuing to identify and inventory the parts and equipment associated with the Al Samoud 2 program. Two reconstituted casting chambers used in the production of solid propellant missiles have been destroyed, and the remnants melted or encased in concrete. The legality of the Al Fatah missile is still under review, pending further investigation and measurement of various parameters of that missile. More papers on anthrax, VX and missiles have recently been provided. Many have been found to restate what Iraq already has declared, and some will require further study and discussion. There is a significant Iraqi effort under way to clarify a major source of uncertainty as to the quantities of biological and chemical weapons which were unilaterally destroyed in 1991. A part of this effort concerns a disposal site, which was deemed too dangerous for full investigation in the past. It is now being re-excavated. To date, Iraq has unearthed eight complete bombs, comprising two liquid-filled intact R-400 bombs and six other complete bombs. Bomb fragments are also found. Samples have been taken. The investigation of the destruction site could, in the best case, allow the determination of the number of bombs destroyed at that site. It should be followed by serious and credible effort to determine the separate issue of how many R-400-type bombs were produced. In this, as in other matters, the inspection work is moving on and may yield results. Iraq proposed an investigation using advanced technology to quantify the amount of unilaterally destroyed anthrax dumped at a site. However, even if the use of advanced technology could quantify the amount of anthrax said to be dumped at the site, the results will still be open to interpretation. Defining the quantity of anthrax destroyed must of course be followed by efforts to establish what quantity was actually produced. With respect to VX, Iraq has recently suggested a similar method to quantify VX precursors stated to have been unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has also recently informed us that following the adoption of the presidential decree prohibiting private individuals and mixed companies from engaging in work relating to weapons of mass destruction, further legislation on the subject is to be enacted. This appears to be in response to a letter from UNMOVIC requesting clarification of the issue.<< <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.blix/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/ 07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.blix/index.html</a> And it wasn't just Hans Blix and UNMOVIC. Here's Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (as reported in Time Magazine in March, 2003, just days before the invasion): >>Citing unnamed diplomatic sources, Time says U.N. weapons inspectors have discovered that Iran's uranium-enrichment facility is "extremely advanced," to the point that it violates the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT]. On a visit last month to Iran, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, visited the facility designed to enrich uranium that Iran is building near Natanz. But diplomatic sources quoted by TIME say he found the plant much further advanced than previously believed. The sources say work on the plant is "extremely advanced," involves hundreds of gas centrifuges ready to produce enriched uranium and "the parts for a thousand others ready to be assembled."<< Government figures who commented on this report include such Usual Suspects as Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell, as well as this odd-woman-out: >>House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi cited Iran last week in presenting her argument that regime change in Iraq will not ensure its disarmament. Iraq is "in a very dangerous neighborhood," the California Democrat said. "The Iranians are developing weapons of mass destruction. Practically every country in the region is developing weapons of mass destruction and the capability to launch them."<< <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/09/iran.nuclear/" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/ meast/03/09/iran.nuclear/</a> One cure for memory disease is to go back to the source material. Sometimes the truth does hurt. As the old saying goes, kill or cure...
Originally Posted By planodisney i defintely do remember Blix wanting more time. I wasnt trying to suggest he was for an invasion, however, it could have gone on for years and they still would have asked for more time. Oh wait, that is what happened. Sadam had been defying inspectors for years, never fully complied, was always deceptive, kicked them out on occasion and they still wanted more time. Please dont think I am placing no blame on the Bush administration for mismanagement, but lets look at all the facts please.
Originally Posted By DlandDug The "legendary Clinton attack machine" was pretty much headed up by James Carville, assisted by a legion of private investigators like Jack Palladino and Louis Stevens. Add to that such stellar names from yesteryear as Paul Begala, George Stephanopoulas, Sidney Blumenthal, Bob Bennett and Anne Lewis. Among the victims? Arkansas State Troopers (who talked about Bill Clinton's dalliances), Billy Dale and his entire staff (White House Travel Office), Congressmen William Clinger and Jim Leach (who had the bad taste to investigate Ron Brown and Whitewater, respectively), Gary Aldrich (author of the trashy "Unlimited Access"), Ken Starr (of course), and those "bimbo eruption" girls including Gennifer Flowers, Sally Perdue, and Paula Jones (of whom Carville famously said, "Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you'll find."). THAT legendary Clinton attack macine...
Originally Posted By Mr X **But there was a lot of support for the war. And it was popular until people realized what a mess Bush made of it.** I got the impression that a lot of the support stemmed from misinformation, and even in some cases outright ignorance. Remember when they did a poll asking people if they thought Iraq was responsible for 9/11? Remember how many people said yes?
Originally Posted By thenurmis OK I just about "wigged out" on this topic just about took it serious. Hate on he man , cuz his name sounds like the "bad guy". But then I read it again and I thought "sarcasim" Then I read it again, and thought "wow do people know its a joke" Then I read it again and thought " wow I can't beleave they would publish this crap" Then I thought yet again " Wow is this the problem, do people read this as the news?" Then I got all up set and thought " wow how could any publication be so frickin stupid and print this?" Then I laughed at my self and thought " It's the internet ha hahaha" then after I laughed a bit, I thought Wow could people really think that he could be bad, based only on his name?" then I got depressed and went to bed thank you America
Originally Posted By Mr X ****Sadam had been defying inspectors for years, never fully complied, was always deceptive, kicked them out on occasion and they still wanted more time.**** IIRC Iraq began to comply SIGNIFICANTLY more when the threat of invasion reached a fever pitch (makes sense)... At that time, I believe the inspectors could've uncovered the facts that would have spared the administration all the embarrassment. But Bush was too gungho. I'm not even saying we should've necessarily stayed out. But under the circumstances, we rushed in even when things were starting to go our way diplomatically, and succeeded in pissing off the whole planet with our hubris. Maybe I'm not remembering correctly, but that's what I recall. And I recall feeling like it would not end well, and it didn't. A better approach would've been to give Hussein enough rope to hang himself, like we did with the Taliban. Nobody bitched about THAT invasion.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Well this is just sad. I'm the first person to notice that the contemporary reports I cited above included one about IRAN rather than IRAQ. That's what I get for late night googling...
