babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » "Saddam wouldn't let in weapons inspectors," says Bush

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: "Saddam wouldn't let in weapons inspectors," says Bush
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 15 July 2003 02:26 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's... astounding.

quote:
"We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

That's what the man said; that's why he went to war.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 15 July 2003 02:29 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
He must've gotten into a bad batch of nose candy. It's the only explanation.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 15 July 2003 02:35 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I will happily watch an ad from the ACLU to get on to Salon for a day.

I loved this:

quote:
And who is going to take the responsibility for this one? Did George Tenet vet Bush's statement? Do the British have a secret dossier proving that Saddam never actually admitted Hans Blix and the UNMOVIC teams? Will Condi Rice or Donald Rumsfeld show up on Fox News next weekend to explain why Bush's statement is "technically accurate," even though he shouldn't have said it?

Yeah.

Unfortunately, as Conason goes on to note, none of these fancy steps is going to be required, since the USian mainstream media did not report the stupid statement!

Markbo doesn't read this forum, does he?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 15 July 2003 02:37 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This article was already linked in the offending thread, skdadl, and Markbo already worked his charm on it. I'd be shocked, if I had it in me.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
drgoodword
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3214

posted 15 July 2003 09:34 PM      Profile for drgoodword   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I predict the spin will be along the lines of, Saddam didn't allow the inspectors all the way "in."

Bush will be said to have been addressing full access, not just entry into Iraq for the UN inspectors.


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 15 July 2003 09:42 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Are you saying that Bush will lie about his lie? I'm shocked! Oh wait, I don't have that in me.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
SHH
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1527

posted 15 July 2003 10:16 PM      Profile for SHH     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

From: Ex-Silicon Valley to State Saguaro | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Peter2003
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4264

posted 15 July 2003 10:34 PM      Profile for Peter2003     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah right, This is beyond funny, this is astonishingly pathatic!
From: Calgary | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 15 July 2003 11:05 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I didn't realize historical revisionists could draw. Live and learn.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 16 July 2003 01:49 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I would point out that whether or not Saddam had WMDs, he was certainly doing his best to hinder the weapons inspectors. Hans Blix's reports were almost all "we found nothing yet, but we don't have nearly enough co-operation from the Iraqi government".

So while the WMD issue is not resolved yet, there is no question that Saddam was violating UN resolutions and trying to make their jobs extremly difficult if not impossible.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 16 July 2003 09:24 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why do the words "Iraq presents a clear and present danger to Americans" always pop into my head during these discussions? Oh ya, because that's what we were told before the war.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 16 July 2003 01:48 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
I would point out that whether or not Saddam had WMDs, he was certainly doing his best to hinder the weapons inspectors. Hans Blix's reports were almost all "we found nothing yet, but we don't have nearly enough co-operation from the Iraqi government".

So while the WMD issue is not resolved yet, there is no question that Saddam was violating UN resolutions and trying to make their jobs extremly difficult if not impossible.


Oh, so now it's "hindering weapons inspections" that justify the killing is it??

Let's see, we have as legitimate excuses for attacking a country:

Being a tyrant
Weapons that reach over 90 miles.
Remote control Model airplanes
Wanting WMD's
Not being able to prove obsolutly you have no WMD's
Hindering weapons inspections

Have I Missed any other lame excuses???

You know, I used to think that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda had some pretty lame reasons for attacking the USA, but it seems I may have been overly rash in that judgement given the new lower standards being used to justify a "provocation" that validate a violent response.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 16 July 2003 11:56 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I still want to know how Iraq presented a threat to anybody except its own citizens given that it lacked any sort of intercontinental launch capability.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
redshift
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1675

posted 17 July 2003 12:07 AM      Profile for redshift     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
maybe they suddenly remembered they'd given haliburton a contract to build a missile plant for Saddam?
just a thought.

From: cranbrook,bc | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Foxer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4251

posted 17 July 2003 03:38 AM      Profile for Foxer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Doc - you are quite correct. Lets walk down the list of 'threats' shall we?

1) - he could fund the terrorists.

Rather unlikely. Sactions had left Iraq pretty broke, and while he had a lot of personal money, it wasn't going to be easy to move it into the hands of terrorist organizations. 'Funding' usually means training, or providing untrackable disposable funds in sufficient amount to operate on a large scale. He wasn't in a position to do that.

2) - he could have given them bio weapons.

He never had any true bio-weapons in any meaningful amount. They say he had the stuff needed to grow anthrax, and thought perhaps he might have the capability to refine it (VERY difficult) but weren't sure. Further, they are hard to transport and break down very easily. And while speculation ran wild, they never thought he had any truly dangerous ones anyway. They refer to him having PROGRAMS - but not actually any stockplies of produced product.

3) - he could give them chemical weapons.

yeah - like mustard gas. Ladies and gents - it takes a HELL of a lot of mustard gas to do any damage. When he wiped out viliges, flights of fighter/bombers carring thousands of litres each hit those places again and again. That's kinda hard to smuggle out in your pocket.

What about things more dangerous? like the highly leathal sarin?! - oh, you mean the same stuff that was released in quantity into a japanese subway back in 91 by that nutbar radical group? The stuff that killed, what, 3 people? Again, you need huge amounts. More people were injured in the fire in south Korea where that loonie let a gas bomb off a year or two back. That is actually much more dangerous due to panic.

Chem and bio weapons are area denial weapons. They make it hard or impossible for the enemy to operate in a given area for an extended period of time, and force him to use NBC equipment and decontamination proceedures. They also allow you to wipe out civilians if you have COMPLETE CONTROL of the area.

3 - He could have attacked his neibhours

How? with what? He hasn't been getting any new gear since the last war, he's no match on the ground for any of his neibours. He has no long range launch capability. What's he going to do - drive 3 missle launchers up to the israeli boarder and pop a missle at them? Hope he enjoys glowing in the dark.

Hell - even when the war was ON the guy couldn't even manage to hit a whole freakin city with his missles. big threat.

4 - he could have supplied training

YA RIGHT!!! This is the biggest laugh of all - THIS guy was going to train RELIGIOUS FANATICS, Inside his own country no less? Mr Paranoid was going to have all his local mullah's have an army a few feet from his door?

5 - someday, he may actually develop real WMD and eventually use them.

True, anything's possible. But this isn't someday.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 17 July 2003 10:29 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I would point out that whether or not Saddam had WMDs, he was certainly doing his best to hinder the weapons inspectors. Hans Blix's reports were almost all "we found nothing yet, but we don't have nearly enough co-operation from the Iraqi government".

Not really. While Blix never said that Iraqi cooperation was 100%, several of his reports said that their cooperation had substantially improved. He also said that given time, he could find out the truth about those weapons.

The bottom line, though, is this. Bush and Cheney
had already decided to go to war against Iraq. The little drama about the inadequate/adequate cooperation by the Iraqis was purely for domestic political consumption.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
April Follies
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4098

posted 17 July 2003 02:46 PM      Profile for April Follies   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well analyzied, Foxer. Iraq was about as much of a "clear and present danger?" as Andorra.
From: Help, I'm stuck in the USA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 18 July 2003 05:17 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No Yards: I was not adressing whether it was right or wrong to go to war. Would you not agree that the Hussein regime could have done a hell of a lot better during UN inspections than they did? If they gave the UN full co-operation in every aspect, it would have been a lot harder to justify going to war. But with the Hussein regime taking every opportunity it could to make the lives of weapons inspectors difficult, it did seem like they had something to hide, albeit that "something" is yet to be found.
From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
celtica
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4069

posted 18 July 2003 10:39 AM      Profile for celtica        Edit/Delete Post
It certainly makes one wonder why Saddam didn't co-operate fully, as I said in another forum, back in 1998 everyone agreed they existed.

Instead of blowing this all out of proportion, why not talk about what should happen now?
What are you all suggesting, that they give Iraq back to Saddam ?

Should they go back to having political prisoners, executions, torture and no freedom of expression ?

While we may not agree with the reasons for going to war, Saddam had to go - one way or another and continual Bush whacking isn't going to solve anything.


From: Colbourne | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 18 July 2003 10:49 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Should they go back to having political prisoners, executions, torture and no freedom of expression ?



Maybe you haven't been paying attentkion, but the US gave them Saddam. They lied as to the reasons for going to war. They still have prisoners, torture and no freedom of expression and executions are part of the plan.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 18 July 2003 10:50 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
While we may not agree with the reasons for going to war, Saddam had to go - one way or another and continual Bush whacking isn't going to solve anything.

Maybe not, but it might prevent similar action in the future. Of course, if Bush is impeached, then the animated zombie known as Cheney will take over, and we're back to square one.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 18 July 2003 11:54 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I always suspeect the motives of those who don't want to address the core decisions, like the decision to go to war, or the decision to occupy a country. They always want to start the debate only after their faits accomplis are in place. They always want to "move on" when criticism becomes too hot.

When thinking about the demand that we not talk qabout the decision to invade, ask yourself: When the USSR invaded Czechoslovakia, or Afghanistan, did the US and its pundits consider the invasion off limits to debate and obliquy just because a month or two had passed?

If the invasion of a country is unjust, everyone has the right to say so, and more than once.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 18 July 2003 12:29 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Would you not agree that the Hussein regime could have done a hell of a lot better during UN inspections than they did? If they gave the UN full co-operation in every aspect, it would have been a lot harder to justify going to war.


Clearly, it is possible to reach negative conclusions from a failure to cooperate with the UN. Do we reach negative conclusions about this, then?

quote:
The documents, which officials said appeared to be of "dubious authenticity," were distributed to the CIA and other agencies within days. But the U.S. government waited four months to turn them over to United Nations weapons inspectors who had been demanding to see evidence of U.S. and British claims that Iraq's attempted purchase of uranium oxide violated U.N. resolutions and was among the reasons to go to war. State Department officials could not say yesterday why they did not turn over the documents when the inspectors asked for them in December.

The administration, facing increased criticism over the claims it made about Iraq's attempts to buy uranium, had said until now that it did not have the documents before the State of the Union speech.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8777-2003Jul17.html?nav=hptop_ts&nav=hptop_ts


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 18 July 2003 12:36 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Would you not agree that the Hussein regime could have done a hell of a lot better during UN inspections than they did? If they gave the UN full co-operation in every aspect, it would have been a lot harder to justify going to war.


Clearly, it is possible to reach negative conclusions from a failure to cooperate with the UN. Do we reach negative conclusions about this, then?

quote:
The documents, which officials said appeared to be of "dubious authenticity," were distributed to the CIA and other agencies within days. But the U.S. government waited four months to turn them over to United Nations weapons inspectors who had been demanding to see evidence of U.S. and British claims that Iraq's attempted purchase of uranium oxide violated U.N. resolutions and was among the reasons to go to war. State Department officials could not say yesterday why they did not turn over the documents when the inspectors asked for them in December.

The administration, facing increased criticism over the claims it made about Iraq's attempts to buy uranium, had said until now that it did not have the documents before the State of the Union speech.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8777-2003Jul17.html?nav=hptop_ts&nav=hptop_ts


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca