What The Democrats Said

[Shady]

Just a little sample:

ALBRIGHT (February 18, 1998): Iraq is a long way from Ohio, 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, and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm.

BILL CLINTON (February 17, 1998): Or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made.

DEAN (January 31, 1998): Iraq is an international outlaw. I'm not sure China is one, but I'm quite sure Iran and Iraq are.

SANDY BERGER (February 18, 1998): He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And someday, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again, as he has ten times since 1983.

PELOSI (November 17, 2002): Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons, there's no question about that.

ROCKEFELLER (October 10, 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 that Saddam Hussein has been able to make in the development of weapons of mass destruction.

BIDEN (August 4, 2002): We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability. There is a real debate how far off that is, whether it's a matter of years, or whether it's a matter of less than that. And so there's much we don't know.

REID (September 18, 2002): Saddam Hussein in effect has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think that the president's approaching this in the right fashion.

TIM RUSSERT (September 15, 2002): Do you believe we could have disarmament without regime change?

HILLARY: I doubt it. I can support the president. I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it's in the long-term interests of our national security.

JOHN EDWARDS (January 7, 2003): Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple.

BAYH (March 17, 2003) : Bill, I support the president's efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein. I think he was right on in his speech tonight. The lessons we learned following September the 11th were that we can't wait to be attacked again, particularly when it involves weapons of mass destruction. So, regrettably, Saddam has not done the right thing, which is disarm, and we're left with no alternative but to -- but to take action.

THE PRESIDENT: (November 11th, 2005) When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support. While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them.

[sharkman]

You could have added quotes by most of the senate and congress dems, including Kerry and Al Gore. The reason they have changed their tunes so dramatically has everything to do with politics, not new revelations. We've known all along that intelligence agencies from key countries involved also came to the same conclusion when looking at the intelligence that the U.S. did. We've known that Saddam attempted to get nukes(nuclear facility destroyed by Israel), used chemical weapons and tried to assassinate a U.S president. We've known for almost a year that there were no WMDs.

This business about 'jazzing up' the intelligence to push for an Iraqi invasion is a smoke screen. After 2 years of nothing but negative coverage of the invasion in the main stream media, surprise surprise, the American population has turned against the war, and Bush's approval ratings have dropped to an all time low. So the dems, who have only a minority in both houses and desperately would like to see Alito rejected, are making all the hay out of this that they can. They want power and they are willing to harm the war effort to do it. I actually heard a recording of Senator Kennedy speaking prior to the invasion about the dangerous threat that exists in Iraq that must be addressed. When asked why he's reversed himself on the issue, he actually said that he didn't believe it as much as Bush did. These are the kinds of reasonings that the administration has to deal with("I actually voted for it before I voted against it" -Kerry) since the media just can't bring themselves to shine a light on it. It's pathetic.

[Black Dog]

We've known all along that intelligence agencies from key countries involved also came to the same conclusion when looking at the intelligence that the U.S. did.

Not really.

' France, Germany and Russia have released an unprecedented joint declaration on the Iraq crisis, demanding more weapons inspectors and more technical assistance for them . . . "Nothing today justifies a war," Mr Chirac told a joint news conference with Mr Putin. "This region really does not need another war." He said France did not have "undisputed proof" that Iraq still held weapons of mass destruction. '

bbc

Russia was extremely skeptical.

Putin dmeands proof over Iraq weapons

That's why all the other UNSC nations wanted more inspections, rather than war.

As for the Democrats supporting the war, most of what they knew about Iraq before the war came via briefings from Bush administration and Pentagon officials. That intelligence, we know know, was cooked by the the Pentagon's Iraq war-planning unit, which manufactured scare stories about Iraq's weapons and ties to terrorists based on cherry-picked data and questionable sources.

Of course, even if they were skeptical, resistance would have been political suicide, given the willingness of the Republican machine to tar anyone who oppossed the war as unpatriotic or even traitorous. Had the Dems stepped up against Bush's rush to war, they would have been hammered by the press and their opponents and the war would have gone ahead regardless.

What the Dems need to do is own up to the fact that they were as suckered in as the rest of America.

After 2 years of nothing but negative coverage of the invasion in the main stream media, surprise surprise, the American population has turned against the war, and Bush's approval ratings have dropped to an all time low. So the dems, who have only a minority in both houses and desperately would like to see Alito rejected, are making all the hay out of this that they can. They want power and they are willing to harm the war effort to do it.

I'm shocked that a political party would seek to exploit its opponents' weakness.

[sharkman]

Yes, the big three. They all had lots of revenue riding on Iraq. If Saddam got pulled from power, they'd lose it forever. IMO, their reputations are sullied by getting into bed with Saddam after he had attacked Kuwait and Desert Storm happened. After the U.N., an agency they seem to hold in high regard, passed resolution after resolution on Saddam's WMD shell game in the 90s. Although Russia hasn't had much of a rep anyway, Putin probably likes Saddam's style. But all the countries that joined the war effort agreed with the intel.

It's easy to claim the books were cooked, and much harder to then disprove it, or prove a negative. No amount of proof would be enough. The thing is they didn't start this particular conspiracy theory in earnest until the public turned against the war and Bush. The press has been critical of the war since Bush landed on the carrier and declared the war over. The dead count has been particulary silly. In many wars 2,000 troops could be lost by lunch time.

[Shady]

Not really

You're being disingenuis. You know for a fact that all major intelligence services believed that Iraq possessed illegal weapons and was pursuing such weapons. At the very least they had some intelligence to back up that claim. But let's talk about Russia shall we? Since you brought them up. Explain this Black Dog.

Russia Warned U.S. About Iraq, Putin Says

Russian President Vladimir Putin said yesterday that his intelligence service had warned the Bush administration before the U.S. invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein's government was planning attacks against U.S. targets both inside and outside the country.

Washington Post

[Black Dog]

Yes, the big three. They all had lots of revenue riding on Iraq. If Saddam got pulled from power, they'd lose it forever. IMO, their reputations are sullied by getting into bed with Saddam after he had attacked Kuwait and Desert Storm happened. After the U.N., an agency they seem to hold in high regard, passed resolution after resolution on Saddam's WMD shell game in the 90s. Although Russia hasn't had much of a rep anyway, Putin probably likes Saddam's style. But all the countries that joined the war effort agreed with the intel.

This is funny because you're basically using the same theory I've been advancing on this board for some time: that the Anglo-American invasion was motivated by the desire to secure access to Iraq's resources at the expense of competitors like Russia and China. It's nice to see you guys finally copping to the pivotal role oil played in the decision to undertake "regime change".

Now I'm not gonna sit here and clam alturism on the part of France, Russia et al in oppossing the war. But, the tremendous amount of insight we've had into the U.S. intelligence gathering process that led to the war lends a certain amount of veracity to their skeptism. In other words, those that doubted the U.S.'s claims were right in the end, regardless of their motivations.

It's easy to claim the books were cooked, and much harder to then disprove it, or prove a negative. No amount of proof would be enough. The thing is they didn't start this particular conspiracy theory in earnest until the public turned against the war and Bush. The press has been critical of the war since Bush landed on the carrier and declared the war over.

Who's "they"? The effort to expose the office responsible for cooking the intel has been underway pretty much from day one. Google "Office of Special Plans" and you'll see how the intellgence gathering process was designe dto "stovepipe" information designed to support pre-existing conclusions on Iraq's WMD capabilities straight to the WHite House. Or read this recent LA Times article, in which the MSM finally catches on to the story of Curveball, the CIA's primary informant (a story lefty blogs have been on for over a year).

So while you may be quick to dismiss the sudden furor as partisan politics, this issue has been a big one in some circles since before the war even began.

You're being disingenuis. You know for a fact that all major intelligence services believed that Iraq possessed illegal weapons and was pursuing such weapons

Obviously, that's not the case. Even the UK had its doubts (see: Downing Street Memo). As for that WaPo story, it's a red herring. It has nowt to do with WMD, nor did the information allegedly related by Putin detail any specific threat. Stick to the discussion at hand.

[sharkman]

No, I'm not advocating that theory you mentioned. The oil was flowing steadily under the U.N. in Iraq, although now we see how corrupt it was(oil for food). To introduce a war into that would actually create uncertainty, hence the oil price flucuation at the time of the attack. And no one knew if the Iraqis would respond with a slash and burn strategy like they did in Kuwait, a situation that would have put their oil production off line completely for some time. In fact they did burn some oil wells. I actually didn't even mention oil. France, Germany and Russia had many contracts with Iraq. I don't believe Iraq could sell oil except with the U.N.'s permission.

Yes, I did mention that the 'cook the books' theory had been around, but had been started in earnest only recently. In using THEY I was refering to the dems. Google just about anything and there will be groups advocating it. For instance, some want to impeach Bush. Who knows, it might come to that, since it was done to 'their' president Clinton, almost.

[Black Dog]

No, I'm not advocating that theory you mentioned. The oil was flowing steadily under the U.N. in Iraq, although now we see how corrupt it was(oil for food). To introduce a war into that would actually create uncertainty, hence the oil price flucuation at the time of the attack. And no one knew if the Iraqis would respond with a slash and burn strategy like they did in Kuwait, a situation that would have put their oil production off line completely for some time. In fact they did burn some oil wells. I actually didn't even mention oil. France, Germany and Russia had many contracts with Iraq. I don't believe Iraq could sell oil except with the U.N.'s permission.

Obviously you don't get it. Iraq's oil was flowing, that much is true, but, as you may not know, U.S. oil companies were shut out of the lucrative post Gulf War contracts. Knocking out Saddam and replacing him with a friendly regime means that U.S. and British oil companies are now first in line, while the competition gets the high hat. In other words, the invasion was about who gets the oil as well as who does not. (Oh and I don't think a scorched earth policy by Saddam would have deterred the U.S.: if anything, that would have made for some more fat reconstruction contracts for U.S. firms...)

[Shakeyhands]

Just a little sample:

ALBRIGHT (February 18, 1998): Iraq is a long way from Ohio, 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, and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm.

BILL CLINTON (February 17, 1998): Or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made. 

DEAN (January 31, 1998): Iraq is an international outlaw. I'm not sure China is one, but I'm quite sure Iran and Iraq are.

SANDY BERGER (February 18, 1998): He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And someday, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again, as he has ten times since 1983.

PELOSI (November 17, 2002): Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons, there's no question about that.

ROCKEFELLER (October 10, 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 that Saddam Hussein has been able to make in the development of weapons of mass destruction.

BIDEN (August 4, 2002): We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability. There is a real debate how far off that is, whether it's a matter of years, or whether it's a matter of less than that. And so there's much we don't know.

REID (September 18, 2002): Saddam Hussein in effect has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think that the president's approaching this in the right fashion.

TIM RUSSERT (September 15, 2002): Do you believe we could have disarmament without regime change? 

HILLARY: I doubt it. I can support the president. I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it's in the long-term interests of our national security.

JOHN EDWARDS (January 7, 2003): Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple.

BAYH (March 17, 2003) : Bill, I support the president's efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein. I think he was right on in his speech tonight. The lessons we learned following September the 11th were that we can't wait to be attacked again, particularly when it involves weapons of mass destruction. So, regrettably, Saddam has not done the right thing, which is disarm, and we're left with no alternative but to -- but to take action.

THE PRESIDENT: (November 11th, 2005) When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support. While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did a directive come out somewhere to start posting these quotes? Other Bush supporters that I know on other boqards have been trotting these quotes out for weeks, ever since the uproar in Congress about Bush's lies to go to war.

[tml12]

Just a little sample:

ALBRIGHT (February 18, 1998): Iraq is a long way from Ohio, 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, and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm.

BILL CLINTON (February 17, 1998): Or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made. 

DEAN (January 31, 1998): Iraq is an international outlaw. I'm not sure China is one, but I'm quite sure Iran and Iraq are.

SANDY BERGER (February 18, 1998): He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And someday, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again, as he has ten times since 1983.

PELOSI (November 17, 2002): Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons, there's no question about that.

ROCKEFELLER (October 10, 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 that Saddam Hussein has been able to make in the development of weapons of mass destruction.

BIDEN (August 4, 2002): We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability. There is a real debate how far off that is, whether it's a matter of years, or whether it's a matter of less than that. And so there's much we don't know.

REID (September 18, 2002): Saddam Hussein in effect has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think that the president's approaching this in the right fashion.

TIM RUSSERT (September 15, 2002): Do you believe we could have disarmament without regime change? 

HILLARY: I doubt it. I can support the president. I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it's in the long-term interests of our national security.

JOHN EDWARDS (January 7, 2003): Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple.

BAYH (March 17, 2003) : Bill, I support the president's efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein. I think he was right on in his speech tonight. The lessons we learned following September the 11th were that we can't wait to be attacked again, particularly when it involves weapons of mass destruction. So, regrettably, Saddam has not done the right thing, which is disarm, and we're left with no alternative but to -- but to take action.

THE PRESIDENT: (November 11th, 2005) When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support. While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did a directive come out somewhere to start posting these quotes? Other Bush supporters that I know on other boqards have been trotting these quotes out for weeks, ever since the uproar in Congress about Bush's lies to go to war.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Democrats cannot admit that a president named George W. Bush convinced them that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. If you're going to call Bush a liar, then call the Democrats ignorant.

[Black Dog]

The Democrats cannot admit that a president named George W. Bush convinced them that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. If you're going to call Bush a liar, then call the Democrats ignorant.

Not to defend the Dems (I'm a pox on both houses kinda guy) but what did you expect? I repeat:

Of course, even if they were skeptical, resistance would have been political suicide, given the willingness of the Republican machine to tar anyone who oppossed the war as unpatriotic or even traitorous. Had the Dems stepped up against Bush's rush to war, they would have been hammered by the press and their opponents and the war would have gone ahead regardless.

Look at the response by the Republicans and their media attack dogs to Murtha this week. Now imagine those same curs unleashed on any opposition to the presidents "War on Terror" agenda a scant two years after 9-11. It would have been a massacre. Fie on the Dems for not growing a set of balls when they could have made a difference, but then, as a minority party, chances are they just would have been steamrolled anyway.

[tml12]

The Democrats cannot admit that a president named George W. Bush convinced them that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. If you're going to call Bush a liar, then call the Democrats ignorant.

Not to defend the Dems (I'm a pox on both houses kinda guy) but what did you expect? I repeat:

Of course, even if they were skeptical, resistance would have been political suicide, given the willingness of the Republican machine to tar anyone who oppossed the war as unpatriotic or even traitorous. Had the Dems stepped up against Bush's rush to war, they would have been hammered by the press and their opponents and the war would have gone ahead regardless.

Look at the response by the Republicans and their media attack dogs to Murtha this week. Now imagine those same curs unleashed on any opposition to the presidents "War on Terror" agenda a scant two years after 9-11. It would have been a massacre. Fie on the Dems for not growing a set of balls when they could have made a difference, but then, as a minority party, chances are they just would have been steamrolled anyway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I cannot disagree with any of that.

[sharkman]

.

Russia Warned U.S. About Iraq, Putin Says

Russian President Vladimir Putin said yesterday that his intelligence service had warned the Bush administration before the U.S. invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein's government was planning attacks against U.S. targets both inside and outside the country.

Washington Post

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This article reveals Iraq was involved in exporting terrorism, something no one has commented on yet, and supports the Bush Administration positon.

I keep hearing about media organizations that are protective of Bush. Besides Fox, who are these media people that run with the republicans, I'd like to know so I can watch them on TV instead of the ant-Bush anti-Republican anti-war effort crap that is on ALL the other major news networks. Ditto for Canadian networks, with special recognition for the CBC.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear sharkman,

From your link,

Russia had no evidence that Hussein was involved in any attacks.

"After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services, the intelligence service, received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S.

Just a threat with no specifics, no evidence and no result. Could these Iraqi sources been the office of Chalabi, who had previously made false claims against Iraq re:WMDs?

[sharkman]

Thelonius, you sound like what Bush supposedly did in reverse. Take intel from the Russian gov. and jazz it down so it doesn't sound so alarming!

If Russia, who doesn't particularly like the U.S. or want it to invade Iraq and damage its economic relationship with Iraq, if they volunteer info they have on Iraqi officials planning terrorist attacks on the U.S. and other places, it's worth looking into.

And could anyone volunteer the news networks besides Fox that are protective or even friendly with Bush, republicans or the war effort in general? Sincerely, it would be nice to hear this slant once in a while.

[Black Dog]

sharkman:

This article reveals Iraq was involved in exporting terrorism, something no one has commented on yet, and supports the Bush Administration positon.

The article reveals nothing. Jumped up headline aside, there's nothing of substance there.

A senior U.S. intelligence official said yesterday that Russia has provided helpful information in the war on terrorism, but that he was "not aware of any specific threat information we were told" about Iraqi activities before the March 2003 invasion.

...

Administration officials last year said their requests resulted in intelligence from countries across the Middle East and Europe, as well as in parts of Asia and Africa where Iraqis or anti-Western terrorist groups were believed to be active. The intelligence-gathering operation was not in response to specific threats but was based on U.S. estimates that Hussein might respond to a U.S. invasion by ordering attacks against U.S. targets in the United States or in other countries.

...

In that interview, as in his latest one, Putin did not specify where or when an attack was to have taken place. U.S. officials have said that the information provided by the Russians was not detailed enough for action to be taken.

If Russia, who doesn't particularly like the U.S. or want it to invade Iraq and damage its economic relationship with Iraq, if they volunteer info they have on Iraqi officials planning terrorist attacks on the U.S. and other places, it's worth looking into.

According to the article, there was no specific threat, only the suspicion that Iraq might undertake terrorist activities in response to an invasion. Note too that its Iraqi inteligence that was being looked at and not outside groups.

And could anyone volunteer the news networks besides Fox that are protective or even friendly with Bush, republicans or the war effort in general? Sincerely, it would be nice to hear this slant once in a while.

While Fox has been the most steadfast in its unflinching partisanship, all the major news networks and other press outlets have taken their turns shilling for the Bushies. Between 9-11 and the start of the 2004 campaign, you'd have been hard pressed to find any major critics of the Bush administration in the mainstream press. People tend to forget the chill which descended over the political discourse after 9-11; not only was the press not immune, they helped drive the agenda (I have to chuckle everytime I hear the right-wing types fly into a spittle-flinging rage over the "left-wing" New York Times, given that that paper-Judith Miller in particular- was key to the White House's efforts to dissemenate misleading intel on Iraq's WMD programs to the public.) If the media has turned against Bush now, it's because Bush's policies have dampened his support and blunte dhis popularity, emaning that it's finally safe to criticize teh president without being labelled a traitor (well, except by the most rabid right wing attack poodles, ie. Rush.)

[sharkman]

True enough, I do remember how the media was pretty patriotic for a while after 9-11. However, after an unparalleled event in American history, when a band of fanatics killed thousands of civilians without the declaration of war, I can understand the response.

And it only lasted a couple of years. By the time Bush landed on the carrier and declared the war over, the media was back being lefties. That's one thing, but the shocking way Dan Rather tried to jazz up some pretend documents for the express purpose of defeating Bush's re-election made up for the previous media behaviour. No media outlet would even declare Bush the winner the night of the election when he won I think it was Ohio by over 100,000 votes. Except for Fox, and they were right.

Anyway, IMO 2 or 3 years of media behaviour out of say 15 years does not reverse the trend towards left of center reporting. That's one reason why Fox does so well. They are the only other option.

[Black Dog]

And it only lasted a couple of years. By the time Bush landed on the carrier and declared the war over, the media was back being lefties. That's one thing, but the shocking way Dan Rather tried to jazz up some pretend documents for the express purpose of defeating Bush's re-election made up for the previous media behaviour. No media outlet would even declare Bush the winner the night of the election when he won I think it was Ohio by over 100,000 votes. Except for Fox, and they were right.

First, let's dispense with the notion that the media and the Democratic political establishments are lefties. They are not. They are establishment, which means status quo. While the media may finally be starting to question Bush's war, they will never ever question or examine the driving force behind U.S. foreign policy, which is U.S. exceptionalism and supremacy. Really, the only reason Iraq has become such a issue is because its going poorly. Mainstream "liberal" America has no problem with war: they just hate losing.

Secondly, I find it fascinating that Dan Rather's airing of some documents of questionable authenticity is considered such a paragon of left-wing bias and partisan muckracking. You'll note the actual substance of the story (Bush going AWOL) remains unchallenged, so the fuss over the documents was merely a distraction from the real issue. Also, I find it odd that there's no accusation of media bias when the actions of groups with direct partisan connections (like the Swift Boat Veterans ) are reported.

And I won't even get into the dodgy election...

[sharkman]

Yes, we are getting into topics that could consume much time and effort, for what purpose? I could spend a half hour refuting and so on to only have you do the same. If you can't see what I see, I'm fine with that.

[Shady]

Obviously, that's not the case. Even the UK had its doubts (see: Downing Street Memo).

Please stop trying to re-write history. The debate in the United Nations wasn't whether Iraq possessed illegal weapons, it was over how to handle the situation, via the inspection process or force. All major intelligence agencies assumed that Iraq possessed such weapons, that wasn't the contentious issue. Oh, and I've read the Downing Street Memo, some really interested information, like the British being very worried about Iraq using chemical or biological weapons in the event of an invasion.

As for that WaPo story, it's a red herring. It has nowt to do with WMD, nor did the information allegedly related by Putin detail any specific threat

LOL, that's a clever way of ducking the issue, but it ain't gonna fly. The Washington Post story, in which you have absolutely no explanation for, is anything but a "red herring". It demonsrates the Administrations (Bush and Clinton) claim that Iraq was a threat, and that Iraq had connections to terrorism. And how the hell do you know whether or not Putin's information detailed any specific threat? Seriously? Where you in the room? Are you a part of Russia's intelligence gathering apparatus? How the hell do you get away with a statement like that? I'm sick of you people speaking as though you have access to all classified information, and as though your all the heads of your own intelligence agency. Pathetic.

[Black Dog]

Yes, we are getting into topics that could consume much time and effort, for what purpose? I could spend a half hour refuting and so on to only have you do the same. If you can't see what I see, I'm fine with that.

Um...this is a discussion board. If you don't want to discuss, why are you here?

Please stop trying to re-write history. The debate in the United Nations wasn't whether Iraq possessed illegal weapons, it was over how to handle the situation, via the inspection process or force. All major intelligence agencies assumed that Iraq possessed such weapons, that wasn't the contentious issue. Oh, and I've read the Downing Street Memo, some really interested information, like the British being very worried about Iraq using chemical or biological weapons in the event of an invasion.

Then why the psuh for inspections by every country not named Great Britain and the United States? Why the lack of any hard evidence whatsoever? There was a tremendous amount of uncertainty: hence the call for inspections.

It demonsrates the Administrations (Bush and Clinton) claim that Iraq was a threat, and that Iraq had connections to terrorism.

You need to learn to read: the article does no such thing. It simply states that they considered the possibility that Iraqi intelligence might resort to terrorism.

The warning was based on what had occurred in 1991, when Iraqi intelligence attempted attacks on U.S. embassies in Indonesia and elsewhere as the Persian Gulf War began.

Really, then, what this article shows is that Iraq was a terrorist threat when threatened with war.

And how the hell do you know whether or not Putin's information detailed any specific threat? Seriously? Where you in the room? Are you a part of Russia's intelligence gathering apparatus? How the hell do you get away with a statement like that? I'm sick of you people speaking as though you have access to all classified information, and as though your all the heads of your own intelligence agency. Pathetic.

Did you actually read the article?

A senior U.S. intelligence official said yesterday that Russia has provided helpful information in the war on terrorism, but that he was "not aware of any specific threat information we were told" about Iraqi activities before the March 2003 invasion.

and

The intelligence-gathering operation was not in response to specific threats but was based on U.S. estimates that Hussein might respond to a U.S. invasion by ordering attacks against U.S. targets in the United States or in other countries.

and

In that interview, as in his latest one, Putin did not specify where or when an attack was to have taken place. U.S. officials have said that the information provided by the Russians was not detailed enough for action to be taken.

[Shady]

Then why the psuh for inspections by every country not named Great Britain and the United States? Why the lack of any hard evidence whatsoever? There was a tremendous amount of uncertainty: hence the call for inspections

Well, it took a while, but you finally admitted the truth. Better late then never. The belief was Iraq possessed illegal weapons, but the differences were over the solutions, inspections vs force. Some people favoured infinite inspections and infinite sanctions. Some people favoured inspections, and then the removal of all sanctions if Iraq was deemed "clean". Others favoured Saddam's removal from power. Now that you've admitted this fact, I"d like you to please correct, for the record, your mis-statements in this thread and other threads. Thank you.

Did you actually read the article?

Yes I did. Did you read it? Carefully?

A senior U.S. intelligence official said yesterday that Russia has provided helpful information in the war on terrorism, but that he was "not aware of any specific threat information we were told" about Iraqi activities before the March 2003 invasion

Can you read that please? It says that this "senior intelligence official" is not aware, not aware, not aware, not aware. Not aware doesn't mean there wasn't detailed information. If he doesn't know, then surely you have no knowledge of this either. So again, how do you know there wasn't detailed intelligence? I'll answer for you. You don't.

[Black Dog]

Well, it took a while, but you finally admitted the truth. Better late then never. The belief was Iraq possessed illegal weapons, but the differences were over the solutions, inspections vs force. Some people favoured infinite inspections and infinite sanctions. Some people favoured inspections, and then the removal of all sanctions if Iraq was deemed "clean". Others favoured Saddam's removal from power. Now that you've admitted this fact, I"d like you to please correct, for the record, your mis-statements in this thread and other threads. Thank you.

Um..let me think abut that. No. I stand by my statements.

Can you read that please? It says that this "senior intelligence official" is not aware, not aware, not aware, not aware. Not aware doesn't mean there wasn't detailed information. If he doesn't know, then surely you have no knowledge of this either. So again, how do you know there wasn't detailed intelligence? I'll answer for you. You don't.

Wow. You. Are. Pathetic.

Again:

The intelligence-gathering operation was not in response to specific threats but was based on U.S. estimates that Hussein might respond to a U.S. invasion by ordering attacks against U.S. targets in the United States or in other countries.

In that interview, as in his latest one, Putin did not specify where or when an attack was to have taken place. U.S. officials have said that the information provided by the Russians was not detailed enough for action to be taken.