• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

Misleading Rhetoric in 2004 State of the Union Address

Boss Hog

TRIBE Member
Misleading Rhetoric in 2004 State of the Union Address
By Stephen Zunes | January 21, 2004


As we gather tonight, hundreds of thousands of American servicemen and women are deployed across the world in the war on terror. By bringing hope to the oppressed and delivering justice to the violent, they are making America more secure.

Though no one should question the commitment and bravery of American servicemen and women, their missions of invading and occupying foreign countries and engaging in high altitude bombing and urban counterinsurgency operations that kill civilians has brought more fear than hope, delivered more violence than justice, and has created an unprecedented level of anti-American sentiment in the Islamic world and beyond that has actually made America less secure.



We have faced serious challenges together and now we face a choice: We can go forward with confidence and resolve or we can turn back to the dangerous illusion that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat to us.

This assumes that those who believe that the Bush administration's policies are illegal, immoral, and counterproductive are living under illusions that deny the dangers from terrorists and despots. This rhetorical device ignores the many national security analysts and ordinary Americans who are fully aware of the forces arrayed against the United States yet believe the country must choose better means to protect itself than continuing the policies of the Bush administration.



The first to see our determination were the Taliban, who made Afghanistan the primary training base of al Qaeda killers. Businesses are opening, health care centers are being established, and the boys and girls of Afghanistan are back in school. With help from the new Afghan Army, our coalition is leading aggressive raids against surviving members of the Taliban and al Qaeda.

While life has improved markedly in the capital of Kabul , the vast majority of Afghanistan is under the grip of warlords, ethnic militias, opium magnates, and overall lawlessness. While women and girls are now legally able to attend school and go out of their houses unaccompanied, many are now too afraid to do so because of the breakdown of law and order.

Furthermore, the aggressive raids led by the United States are unfortunately not just against surviving members of the Taliban and al Qaeda, but often end up being against innocent villagers. Indeed, more Afghan civilians have been killed from U.S. bombing raids than American civilians were killed from the 9/11 terrorist attacks.



Since we last met in this chamber, combat forces of the United States and other countries enforced the demands of the United Nations, ended the rule of Saddam Hussein, and the people of Iraq are free.

The United Nations did not demand an invasion of Iraq or an end to Saddam's regime. It demanded that the Iraqi government destroy its weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems and open up to intrusive inspections to confirm that it had done so. Iraq eventually came into compliance with these demands, allowing UN inspectors to return to conduct unimpeded inspections anywhere in the country in 2002 and apparently eliminating its WMDs and delivery systems some years earlier. An invasion was not necessary for Iraq to comply with the demands of the United Nations since it had already done so.

While the people of Iraq are free from Saddam Hussein's rule, they are not free. They are living under a foreign military occupation and the United States occupation authorities has thus far rejected popular demands by the Iraqis for direct elections to choose their own government.



Having broken the Baathist regime, we face a remnant of violent Saddam supporters. These killers, joined by foreign terrorists, are a serious, continuing danger. We are dealing with these thugs in Iraq, just as surely as we dealt with Saddam Hussein's evil regime.

While Baathists are apparently taking the dominant role leading the armed resistance to the U.S. occupation, increasing numbers of Iraqis fighting U.S. forces are not supporters of the former regime, but are non-Baathist nationalists who resent their country being controlled by a foreign army. If U.S. forces were simply battling remnants of the old regime and some foreign supporters, it would largely be a mopping up operation where attacks would be decreasing over time. Instead, the resistance has been growing. While those planting bombs in crowded civilian areas are undeniably thugs and terrorists, the vast majority of attacks are against uniformed foreign occupation forces which, while most unfortunate, are generally recognized as legitimate acts of resistance under international law.



Today our coalition is working with the Iraqi Governing Council to draft a basic law, with a bill of rights. We are working with Iraqis and the United Nations to prepare for a transition to full Iraqi sovereignty by the end of June.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration and its handpicked Iraqi Governing Council are trying to set up a government through regional caucuses that they can control, rejecting popular demands for direct elections. Under this system and with U.S. occupation forces remaining in the country, it would be a stretch to consider the establishment of such a government full Iraqi sovereignty. The United Nations has thus far been understandably reluctant to support the establishment of what many would see as a puppet regime.



As democracy takes hold in Iraq , the enemies of freedom will do all in their power to spread violence and fear. They are trying to shake the will of our country and our friends, but the United States of America will never be intimidated by thugs and assassins. The killers will fail, and the Iraqi people will live in freedom.

By defining the U.S. occupation as democracy and those who are fighting the occupation as enemies of freedom who are trying to shake the will of our country, President Bush is trying to make Americans and others who are calling for a U.S. withdrawal appear to be unprincipled cowards.



Last month, the leader of Libya voluntarily pledged to disclose and dismantle all of his regime's weapons of mass destruction programs, including a uranium enrichment project for nuclear weapons. Nine months of intense negotiations involving the United States and Great Britain succeeded with Libya, while 12 years of diplomacy with Iraq did not. And one reason is clear: For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible and no one can now doubt the word of America.

This is misleading on several counts. First of all, Iraq 's weapons of mass destruction programs had been well-developed, whereas Libya 's WMD efforts were in their infancy. Secondly, there was no direct diplomacy between the United States and Iraq in the twelve years prior to the invasion: there were sanctions, threats, and air strikes. Most importantly, the implication that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was what led Libya to give up its program flies in the face of logic: Not only did Iraq give up its WMD programs through United Nations efforts prior to the U.S. invasion, but despite dismantling its weapons and opening up to inspections the United States invaded anyway.



Let us be candid about the consequences of leaving Saddam in power. Already the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. Had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day.

Last year, President Bush falsely claimed Iraq had large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. At most, all he can claim now is that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction-related program activities. These were virtually all legal and inconsequential remnants of old programs, not new WMD programs starting up again that posed a potential threat. With strict sanctions remaining in place against the importation of military equipment, dual use technologies, and raw materials to Iraq that could be used for WMD development (which, unlike the economic sanctions, were strongly supported worldwide) it is hard to imagine how Saddam Hussein could have ever restarted his WMD programs.



Had we failed to act, Security Council resolutions on Iraq would have been revealed as empty threats, weakening the United Nations and encouraging defiance by dictators around the world.

Not only does it appear that Iraq was apparently in compliance with UN Security Council resolutions at the time of the U.S. invasion, there are more than ninety UN Security Council resolutions currently being violated by countries other than Iraq , the vast majority by governments supported by the Bush administration. U.S. policy has done far more than Saddam Hussein in weakening the authority of the United Nations.



The world without Saddam Hussein's regime is a better and safer place.

Putting aside the fact that previous Republican administrations helped keep the regime in power during the 1980s (its most dangerous and repressive period), many of Iraq's neighbors and independent strategic analysts believe that a weak and disarmed Iraqi regime even under Saddam's oppressive rule represented a better and safer environment than the current situation, where Iraq is torn by guerrilla warfare, terrorist attacks, separatist movements, and a rising tide of Islamic extremism.



Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq.

Despite some notable exceptions, most of the 34 countries contributing to the U.S. occupation have sent only very small and highly specialized units (such as medical teams or construction workers) and have done so only under diplomatic pressure and financial incentives. Americans make up over 85% of the occupation forces and have control over virtually all of the political, military, and reconstruction operations by these other countries. By contrast, most of those who are calling for internationalizing the operations in Iraq are advocating placing Iraq under a United Nations trusteeship similar to that which guided East Timor to independence following the 1999 Indonesian withdrawal.



From the beginning, America has sought international support for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we have gained much support. There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people.

In reality, it was not a few nations, but an overwhelming majority of the world's nations that opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Furthermore, public opinion polls show that even in countries whose governments did support the U.S. invasion, the majority of these countries' populations opposed it. It is highly unlikely that there would be any opposition in the United Nations Security Council or anywhere else for the U.S. government to defend the security of our people. The invasion of Iraq, however, was not about defending the security of the American people but an illegal act of aggression, according to the United Nations Charter, which has been signed and ratified by the United States and virtually every country in the world.



As long as the Middle East remains a place of tyranny, despair, and anger, it will continue to produce men and movements that threaten the safety of America and our friends. So America is pursuing a forward strategy of freedom in the greater Middle East. We will challenge the enemies of reform, confront the allies of terror, and expect a higher standard from our friends.

The unfortunate reality is that the United States is not pursuing a strategy of freedom, but continues to be the primary military, financial, and diplomatic supporter of the majority of tyrannical regimes in the Middle East. The United States supplies the equipment and training for internal security forces for dictatorial governments in countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Uzbekistan that crush popular movements for reform as well as providing the military equipment for occupation armies that suppress movements for national self-determination from Western Sahara to the West Bank.



Our aim is a democratic peace, a peace founded upon the dignity and rights of every man and woman. America acts in this cause with friends and allies at our side, yet we understand our special calling: This great republic will lead the cause of freedom.

No country has given more military and economic support to more dictatorships and occupation armies in the Middle East and in the world as a whole than has the United States . The monetary value of U.S. military aid to Middle Eastern countries is six times our economic aid. The top commercial export from the United States to the Middle East is not consumer items, high technology, or foodstuffs but armaments. Virtually all the recipients of such weaponry are governments that engage in gross and systematic human rights abuses. Unfortunately, U.S. policy has little to do with peace or freedom.

Perhaps even more disheartening than these misleading statements by President Bush during his State of the Union address is that, in their formal responses to Bush's speech, Democratic congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Tom Daschle failed to challenge them other than a vague appeal for stronger diplomatic efforts. None of the analysts on the major networks challenged these misleading statements either. Meanwhile, the two Democratic presidential contenders who dominated the Iowa caucuses the previous evening were senators who have largely supported Bush administration policy in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel/Palestine, and elsewhere in the Middle East.

President Bush can get away with such misleading rhetoric because he knows the mainstream media and the Democratic Party will allow him to do so. Unless the American public demands greater accountability from the news media and the Democratic Party leadership, George W. Bush will have four more opportunities to make similar State of the Union speeches.

(Stephen Zunes is an associate professor of Politics and chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco. He serves as Middle East editor for Foreign Policy in Focus (online at www.fpif.org) and the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (online at www.commoncouragepress.com).)



http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0401souann.html
 

Deep_Groove

TRIBE Member
Yawn...more of the same hysterical rhetoric...

And you guys just lap it up without question. Might I be so bold as to ask:

Indeed, more Afghan civilians have been killed from U.S. bombing raids than American civilians were killed from the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Last year, President Bush falsely claimed Iraq had large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

These were virtually all legal and inconsequential remnants of old programs, not new WMD programs starting up again that posed a potential threat

No country has given more military and economic support to more dictatorships and occupation armies in the Middle East and in the world as a whole{???} than has the United States. The monetary value of U.S. military aid to Middle Eastern countries is six times our economic aid. The top commercial export from the United States to the Middle East is not consumer items, high technology, or foodstuffs but armaments.

SOURCES PLEASE?

- Deep_Groove
 

derek

TRIBE Member
^^^

dude you are truly ignorant.

here's your sources. and i didn't pull them from leftwing think tank sites.

afgan cilvilian killed

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1740538.stm

wmd misrepresdentation (lies), also provides 'sources' for

"These were virtually all legal and inconsequential remnants of old programs, not new WMD programs starting up again that posed a potential threat

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27978-2004Jan18.html

http://www.ceip.org/files/nonprolif/templates/archive.asp?ArchiveType=1&WeaponID=2

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/26/i...Y.html?ex=1076088963&ei=1&en=31c2b5a94e66f2f3

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/19/international/europe/19SPIEGEL.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47283-2004Jan25.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/11/opinion/11SUN1.html

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed.../01/14/powells_shrinking_credibility_on_iraq/

and for:

"No country has given more military and economic support to more dictatorships and occupation armies in the Middle East and in the world as a whole{???} than has the United States. The monetary value of U.S. military aid to Middle Eastern countries is six times our economic aid. The top commercial export from the United States to the Middle East is not consumer items, high technology, or foodstuffs but armaments."

pick up a book and read (preferably a book with documentation and not rhetoric like you usually read) it's all been documented

ever here of:

chile
guatemala
argentina
equador
nicaruagua
vietnam
east timor
the taliban
saudi arabia
iran - contra
serbia
cambodia (pol pot & the khemer rouge)

"Yawn...more of the same hysterical rhetoric..."

probably the most accurate statement you've made on the board. of course you're probably to stunned to understand it applies more to your posts than anyone else's.

cheers,

derek
 

derek

TRIBE Member
^^

forgot about irag, when sadam was the us admin's boy. who doe you think sold him weapons (of mass destruction), and israel, they keep talkin' pease but the us still gives the 3bill a year, and only pays lip service when sharon breaks int'l law. why? because they break int'l l, know it.

do you want sources for that to, or is you history good enough to remember a un res condeming acts israel commited. the us also had a un res condeming acts they committd breaking the geneva convention with their illegal incurrsion in south vietnam, and cambodia.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Boss Hog

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Deep_Groove
Yawn...more of the same hysterical rhetoric...

And you guys just lap it up without question. Might I be so bold as to ask:



SOURCES PLEASE?

- Deep_Groove


No. This is public info, I know it, others know it. You go find it.

(edit: nevermind, Derek has humoured you this time.)
 

Boss Hog

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by derek

do you want sources for that to, or is you history good enough to remember a un res condeming acts israel commited. the us also had a un res condeming acts they committd breaking the geneva convention with their illegal incurrsion in south vietnam, and cambodia.

you know how history is destined to repeat itself? It's because of fools, deniars and liars.
 

Deep_Groove

TRIBE Member
As for Marc Herold:

"...the Taliban, conscious of the Western desire to minimize innocent casualties, deliberately exaggerated the number of civilian dead in its propaganda. This has now been confirmed beyond contest by the Afghan journalists themselves. They told the Associated Press on Feb. 12 that "Taliban officials systematically doctored reports of civilian deaths … in an attempt to galvanize opposition to the bombing."

Any estimate that relies on stories that gave credence to news releases from the Taliban's mouthpiece, the Afghan Islamic Press (AIP), is therefore irrevocably tainted with this propaganda. Unfortunately, the most widely quoted figure for civilian deaths (about 4,000) fell into this very trap. Professor Marc Herold of the University of New Hampshire compiled a detailed list of news reports of civilian casualties from global media outlets. In including Pakistani and Indian news media he thereby included a large number of reports that drew from AIP sources, fatally weakening his argument.

That, however, is not the only problem with Professor Herold's analysis..."

Source:
http://www.techcentralstation.com/030402A.html

As for Bush's claims about Iraq's WMD, I CHALLENGE ANY OF YOU TO FIND ME ONE DIRECT QUOTE FROM A BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ALLEGING THAT:

A) "We are 100% CERTAIN that Saddam possesses WMD RIGHT NOW."

OR

B) "Saddam is an 'imminent threat'" (or a reasonaby similar phrase, like "immediate threat").

The case for war was not based on either of these DISTORTIONS that you guys have presented.

The case was this: In a world in which we KNOW that many anti-American fanatics are seeking WMD, the risk of leaving a man in power who we KNOW hates America, who we KNOW was at one time developing WMD, and who has shown no signs of NOT wanting to continue doing so, was too great.

THAT was the case, as presented by the Bush Administration. All they did was present lists of weapons that Saddam had not accounted for and let people make up their own minds.

At no time did anyone make the fanciful claims of 100% certainty or imminent threat that you guys imply. If I'm wrong, PROVE IT.

As for this:

"No country has given more military and economic support to more dictatorships and occupation armies in the Middle East and in the world as a whole{???} than has the United States. The monetary value of U.S. military aid to Middle Eastern countries is six times our economic aid. The top commercial export from the United States to the Middle East is not consumer items, high technology, or foodstuffs but armaments."

I repeat my question: SOURCES PLEASE???

I think a very good case could be made that the Soviet Union, in its time, met all those criteria far better than America.

The fact that none of you have thought it important enough to directly address this issue, and just ASSUME that the hysterical anti-American rhetoric MUST be correct, speaks volumes about the standards of evidence you are willing to admit into your world-view.

- Deep_Groove
 

OTIS

TRIBE Member
For a:

Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations Address
September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio Address
October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003

"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."

Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

------------

You're obviously trying to set up a semantical argument. But I could give a shit to give into it.
 

OTIS

TRIBE Member
Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-CT, September 4, 2002

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late.

Sen. Joseph Biden D-Del., September 4, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

George W. Bush September 12, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer December 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

George W. Bush January 28, 2003

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.

Colin Powell February 5, 2003

Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, February 5, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George Bush February 8, 2003

So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment has to be clearly not.

Colin Powell March 8, 2003

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.

George Bush March 18, 2003

We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd.

Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

Ari Fleisher March 21, 2003

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.

Gen. Tommy Franks March 22, 2003

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.

Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board , March 23, 2003

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.

Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark March 22, 2003

We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.

Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003



Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction

Jack Straw,
Foreign Secretary 2 April, 2003

Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.

Neocon scholar Robert Kagan April 9, 2003

I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found.

Ari Fleischer April 10, 2003

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.

George Bush April 24, 2003

Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit.

Tony Blair 28 April, 2003


There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country. Donald Rumsfeld April 25, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

George Bush May 3, 2003

I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction.

Colin Powell May 4, 2003

I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld May 4, 2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.

George W. Bush May 6, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.

Condoleeza Rice May 12, 2003

I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.

Maj. Gen. David Petraeus,
Commander 101st Airborne May 13, 2003

Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.

Gen. Michael Hagee,
Commandant of the Marine Corps May 21, 2003

Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.

Gen. Richard Myers,
Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff May 26, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.

Donald Rumsfeld May 27, 2003

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

OTIS

TRIBE Member
Some poignant ones..

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late.
Sen. Joseph Biden D-Del., September 4, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
Colin Powell February 5, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
Ari Fleisher March 21, 2003

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.
Gen. Tommy Franks March 22, 2003

We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.
Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003

Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction
Jack Straw,
Foreign Secretary 2 April, 2003

Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.
Gen. Michael Hagee,
Commandant of the Marine Corps May 21, 2003


====================

May I also remind you, especially in the case of Ari Fleicher, that what comes out of his mouth, is directly the position of Bush, and the administration. His word is considered as important as a direct quote from the President himself.
 

Deep_Groove

TRIBE Member
General Tommy Franks is not a Bush Administration official. Neither is Joe Lieberman, or Joe Biden, or any of the other irrelevant names you have provided

After having gone through those lists, here are all the statements that actually meet the criteria I set out:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

Dick Cheney August 26, 2002


"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."

George Bush March 18, 2003


"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."

Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

-----------------------
Might I ask WHY THE SAME STATEMENT IS REPEATED TWICE AND ATTRIBUTED TO DIFFERENT DAYS??? Would it be too hasty to dismiss these quotes as pure fabrication in light of this?

I don't think it would.

If you don't want that, would it be too much to ask you to PROVIDE YOUR SOURCES OF THESE QUOTES??? Certainly that Dick Cheney quote would prove me wrong, IF IT IS IN FACT ACCURATE!

(But then again, one or two exaggerated quotes among countless statements about Iraq by Bush administration officials would not do much to prove that they "lied" anyway...)


P.S. derek:

This claim:

"These were virtually all legal and inconsequential remnants of old programs, not new WMD programs starting up again that posed a potential threat"

Has not been substantiated by any of those links you provided. NO ONE HERE HAS YET PROVIDED A SATISFACTORY SOURCE FOR THAT STATEMENT.

But that's OK, you just go on believing it...

- Deep_Groove
 
Last edited:

Deep_Groove

TRIBE Member
Here's a really good article on the WMD from the NYT :D

Ex-Inspector Says C.I.A. Missed Disarray in Iraqi Arms Program
by James Risen

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/26/i...html?position=&th=&pagewanted=print&position=

Some key points of note:

"...C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies did not realize that Iraqi scientists had presented ambitious but fanciful weapons programs to Mr. Hussein and had then used the money for other purposes."

---Interesting...

"Dr. Kay also reported that Iraq attempted to revive its efforts to develop nuclear weapons in 2000 and 2001, but never got as far toward making a bomb as Iran and Libya did.

"Dr. Kay said that based on his team's interviews with Iraqi scientists, reviews of Iraqi documents and examinations of facilities and other materials, the administration was also almost certainly wrong in its prewar belief that Iraq had any significant stockpiles of illicit weapons."

"Dr. Kay said analysts had come to him, "almost in tears, saying they felt so badly that we weren't finding what they had thought we were going to find — I have had analysts apologizing for reaching the conclusions that they did."

---So, if anything, it was the intelligence that was flawed, not the motives of the Bush administration.

"I think they gradually reduced stockpiles throughout the 1990's. Somewhere in the mid-1990's, the large chemical overhang of existing stockpiles was eliminated.

While it is possible Iraq kept developing "test amounts" of chemical weapons and was working on improved methods of production, he said, the evidence is strong that "they did not produce large amounts of chemical weapons throughout the 1990's."

Regarding biological weapons, he said there was evidence that the Iraqis continued research and development "right up until the end" to improve their ability to produce ricin. "They were mostly researching better methods for weaponization," Dr. Kay said. "They were maintaining an infrastructure, but they didn't have large-scale production under way."

"Dr. Kay said he believed that Iraq was a danger to the world, but not the same threat that the Bush administration publicly detailed.

"We know that terrorists were passing through Iraq," he said. "And now we know that there was little control over Iraq's weapons capabilities. I think it shows that Iraq was a very dangerous place. The country had the technology, the ability to produce, and there were terrorist groups passing through the country — and no central control."

"Dr. Kay said interviews with senior officers of the Special Republican Guards, Mr. Hussein's most elite units, had suggested that prewar intelligence reports were wrong in warning that these units had chemical weapons and would use them against American forces as they closed in on Baghdad.

"The former Iraqi officers reported that no Special Republican Guard units had chemical or biological weapons, he said. But all of the officers believed that some other Special Republican Guard unit had chemical weapons.

"They all said they didn't have it, but they thought other units had it," Dr. Kay said. He said it appeared they were the victims of a disinformation campaign orchestrated by Mr. Hussein.

---Interesting....so there was a lot of chaos in Saddam's government near the end...

"Dr. Kay said he was convinced that the analysts were not pressed by the Bush administration to make certain their prewar intelligence reports conformed to a White House agenda on Iraq.

Last year, some C.I.A. analysts said they had felt pressed to find links between Iraq and Al Qaeda to suit the administration. While Dr. Kay said he has no knowledge about that issue, he did not believe that pressure was placed on analysts regarding the weapons programs.

"All the analysts I have talked to said they never felt pressured on W.M.D.," he said. "Everyone believed that they had W.M.D."

Dr. Kay also said he never felt pressed by the Bush administration to shape his own reports on the status of Iraq's weapons. He said that in a White House meeting with Mr. Bush last August, the president urged him to uncover what really happened.

"The only comment I ever had from the president was to find the truth," Dr. Kay said. "I never got any pressure to find a certain outcome."
 

OTIS

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Deep_Groove

If you don't want that, would it be too much to ask you to PROVIDE YOUR SOURCES OF THESE QUOTES??? Certainly that Dick Cheney quote would prove me wrong, IF IT IS IN FACT ACCURATE!


Dick

Dont forget to throw Ari's into a search engine too. He IS the official whitehouse spokesperson.

P.S. your backpedaling and predictable shift to a semantical argument is laughable.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

SlipperyPete

TRIBE Member
why bother Rob?
he likes the view from up his ass, and nothing's going to get him to pull his head out of his ass and see the light/.
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
What people often forget is that language is used to convey ideas in order to spread knowledge. Knowledge does not correlate with fact or truth.

So for all I care, the Bush administration could have said that it was trying to bring love, peace and rights to humans everywhere, it makes no difference to me. What I value, is the observed behaviours of government. And what I observe does not coincide with my definition of peace, rights or democracy.
 

OTIS

TRIBE Member
Motives are easy to guess, but harder to prove. Quotes are impeachable, and give the 4th estate something to chew on.. that is if they choose to. You or I may know the real intent behind it all.. but what does that matter if it's unprovable.
 

derek

TRIBE Member
yo deepgroove.

Powell did more than "consider" the possibilities. He was the man who went before the United Nations Security Council last Feb. 5 to persuade the world that Saddam was an imminent threat

from the washington post. is that imminent enough for you.

when you read to you take everthing literally, or are capable of inference. learn to read between the lines, and the real purpose will become more clear.

now out of all those countries can you name one, and provide evidence and sources where the US admin succeed in accomplish thier publicized (before declassification of critical docs). the past often says alot about the present and future. can you see the hiddden agendas?

Cheers,

derek
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
WMD was a dumb reason to have used to go to war.

It would have been far easier to have snatched a few high ranking Iraqi's, tortured them into confessions, and then gone to war. No the confessions don't havce to be true really, all they do is provide the reason to knock out Saddam.


Whoever was running the propaganda department should be fired. Never create a tangible measure with which to judge a war.
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Ditto Much
WMD was a dumb reason to have used to go to war.

It would have been far easier to have snatched a few high ranking Iraqi's, tortured them into confessions, and then gone to war. No the confessions don't havce to be true really, all they do is provide the reason to knock out Saddam.


Whoever was running the propaganda department should be fired. Never create a tangible measure with which to judge a war.




"Beware the leader who bangs drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
 

Boss Hog

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Ditto Much
Whoever was running the propaganda department should be fired. Never create a tangible measure with which to judge a war.



Please don't EVER go into politics. Jesus.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
Top