Election 2004

[Jedi_Monk]

You've got your facts mixed up my friend. What about the thousands of overseas military ballots that Gore had banned from the count? Do those voices not count?

Gore wasn't able to ban anything from the count. He wanted some of the overseas ballots to be thrown out, in accordance with the law, but then his prospective-VP choked under pressure and said they should all be counted, even though they didn't meet the legal standard. A lot of these votes were counted, even though they had no reason to be, and those votes were overwhelmingly in favor of Bush. Here're some of the problems with the absentee ballots:

 

- 344 ballots had no evidence that they were cast on or before Election Day.

 

- 183 ballots were postmarked in the United States.

 

- 96 ballots lacked appropriate witness information.

 

-169 ballots came from unregistered voters, had envelopes that weren't signed properly, or came from people who hadn't requested a ballot.

 

-5 ballots came after the November 17 deadline.

 

-19 overseas voters voted on two ballots--and had both counted.

 

All of these ballots violated Florida law, yet all were counted.

 

These figures are from a series of articles printed in the New York Times, and are compiled in a great book by Michael Moore called Stupid White Men. The first chapter is a very in-depth account of many of the Dirty Tricks uncovered in Florida.

 

Now, add up the numbers I mentioned above... they equal over 800 votes that shouldn't have been counted but were... and Gore's supposed margin of defeat was about 500 votes. There, of course, could be overlap in these numbers, but there were other votes waiting for Gore had the count continued instead of being halted by the Supreme Court.

 

[Mafia_Jabba]

Someone earlier said the US was the main country that "lost" or "gave" nukes to rouge terrorists.

 

Are you ****ting me? You got your facts F'd up because it was the Russian gov. that sold them to make money to needy countries who wanted nuclear power.

 

I'm also tired of people wanting the US to get involved in everything, but then when we do, we get terrorists crashing planes into skyscrappers. We can't be isolationists because then we're stuck-up and greedy, and we can't be peacekeepers because then we're treading on holy land. What the hell do you want from us then?

 

Great! I couldn't agree more. We are THE most tolerant country. I have heard complaints from Central America saying we don't give them enough money. I have heard European liberalists saying we are too war hungry. Shut up you morons. We try to give all we can but we can only give so much and ALL of our military operations are completely justified so don't give me any of that bull**** of we are war hungry. Somalia, Desert Storm, Vietnam, Korea, WWII. All justified. And I hate IDIOTS who say BUSH is just war hungry. WE WERE ATTACKED YOU ****ING IDIOTS! And IRAQ has NUCLEAR WEAPONS! NUCLEAR WEAPONS! Think about it idiot! And Sadaam ****ing insane! Jesus! God I hate foreigners and idiots who take part in a political discussion and don't even know the facts. They sound like a bunch of fifth graders. And, btw, Yes i do sound like I'm whinning but who gives a ****. If that's your only comeback then you know your wrong and you have nothing else to discuss. If you say I curse too much then the same goes for you.

[Jedi_Monk]

I'm posting this in responce to Mafia_Jabba... it's very long, but very informative and I suggest you read it before you make any decision about whether the American People should support war with Iraq:

 

Article by William Pitt -

 

I saw former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter last night in Boston, and I have been up all night transcribing the tape and writing the following report.

 

The situation is worse than dire, and we will have to beat long odds to stop Bush from attacking Iraq. But it *can* be done, and the attempt *must* be made by all of us. I pray, beg, plead that you will read what follows, and use the information provided. Take some time today and do this. Tell friends. Give this to non-political friends who have been brainwashed about Iraq.

 

The clock is ticking. All quotes below are direct from Ritter, transcribed by hand from the tape I made tonight. I met him, interviewed him, shook his hand. He gave me the data, and I give it to you. The following will be a working Truthout link by 1pm, so you can forward that. In the meantime, I beg you to read and get down to business.

 

- - - - -

 

The Coming October War in Iraq, and How You Can Stop It

 

Room 295 of the Suffolk Law School building in downtown Boston was filled to capacity on July 23rd with peace activists, aging Cambridge hippies and assorted freaks. One of the organizers for the gathering, United For Justice With Peace Coalition, handed out green pieces of paper that read, "We will not support war, no matter what reason or rhetoric is offered by politicians or the media. War in our time and in this context is indiscriminate, a war against innocents and against children." Judging from the crowd, and from the buzz in the room, that pretty much summed things up.

 

The contrast presented when Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, entered the room, could not have been more disparate. There at the lectern stood this tall lantern-jawed man, every inch the twelve-year Marine Corps veteran he was, who looked and spoke just exactly like a bulldogging high school football coach. A whistle on a string around his neck would have perfected the image.

 

"I need to say right out front," he said minutes into his speech, "I'm a card-carrying Republican in the conservative-moderate range who voted for George W. Bush for President. I'm not here with a political agenda. I'm not here to slam Republicans. I am one."

 

Yet this was a lie - Scott Ritter had come to Boston with a political agenda, one that impacts every single American citizen. Ritter was in the room that night to denounce, with roaring voice and burning eyes, the coming American war in Iraq. According to Ritter, this coming war is about nothing more or less than domestic American politics, based upon speculation and rhetoric entirely divorced from fact. According to Ritter, that war is just over the horizon.

 

"The Third Marine Expeditionary Force in California is preparing to have 20,000 Marines deployed in the (Iraq) region for ground combat operations by mid-October," he said. "The Air Force used the vast majority of its precision-guided munitions blowing up caves in Afghanistan. Congress just passed emergency appropriations money and told Boeing company to accelerate their production of the GPS satellite kits, that go on bombs that allow them to hit targets while the planes fly away, by September 30, 2002. Why? Because the Air Force has been told to have three air expeditionary wings ready for combat operations in Iraq by mid-October."

 

"As a guy who was part of the first Gulf War," said Ritter, who indeed served under Schwarzkopf in that conflict, "when you deploy that much military power forward - disrupting their training cycles, disrupting their operational cycles, disrupting everything, spending a lot of money - it is very difficult to pull them back without using them."

 

"You got 20,000 Marines forward deployed in October," said Ritter, "you better expect war in October."

 

His purpose for coming to that room was straightforward: The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Democrat Joe Biden, plans to call a hearing beginning on Monday, July 29th. The Committee will call forth witnesses to describe the threat posed to America by Iraq. Ritter fears that much crucial information will not be discussed in that hearing, precipitating a war authorization by Congress based on political expediency and ignorance. Scott Ritter came to that Boston classroom to exhort all there to demand of the Senators on the Committee that he be allowed to stand as a witness.

 

Ritter began his comments by noting the interesting times we live in after September 11th. There has been much talk of war, and much talk of war with Iraq. Ritter was careful to note that there are no good wars - as a veteran, he described war as purely awful and something not to be trivialized - but that there is such a thing as a just war. He described America as a good place, filled with potential and worth fighting for. We go to just war, he said, when our national existence has been threatened.

 

According to Ritter, there is no justification in fact, national security, international law or basic morality to justify this coming war with Iraq. In fact, when asked pointedly what the mid-October scheduling of this conflict has to do with the midterm Congressional elections that will follow a few weeks later, he replied, simply, "Everything."

 

"This is not about the security of the United States," said this card-carrying Republican while pounding the lectern. "This is about domestic American politics. The national security of the United States of America has been hijacked by a handful of neo-conservatives who are using their position of authority to pursue their own ideologically-driven political ambitions. The day we go to war for that reason is the day we have failed collectively as a nation."

 

Ritter was sledding up a pretty steep slope with all this. After all, Saddam Hussein has been demonized for twelve years by American politicians and the media. He gassed his own people, and America has already fought one war to keep him under control. Ritter's presence in Iraq was demanded in the first place by Hussein's pursuit of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction, along with the ballistic missile technology that could deliver these weapons to all points on the compass.

 

According to the Bush administration, Hussein has ties to the same Al Qaeda terrorists that brought down the World Trade Center. It is certain that Hussein will use these terrorist links to deliver a lethal blow to America, using any number of the aforementioned weapons. The argument, propounded by Bush administration officials on any number of Sunday news talk shows, is that a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, and the unseating of Saddam Hussein, is critical to American national security. Why wait for them to hit us first?

 

"If I were an American, uninformed on Iraq as we all are," said Ritter, "I would be concerned." Furthermore, continued Ritter, if an unquestionable case could be made that such weapons and terrorist connections existed, he would be all for a war in Iraq. It would be just, smart, and in the interest of national defense.

 

Therein lies the rub: According to Scott Ritter, who spent seven years in Iraq with the UNSCOM weapons inspection teams performing acidly detailed investigations into Iraq's weapons program, no such capability exists. Iraq simply does not have weapons of mass destruction, and does not have threatening ties to international terrorism. Therefore, no premise for a war in Iraq exists. Considering the American military lives and the Iraqi civilian lives that will be spent in such an endeavor, not to mention the deadly regional destabilization that will ensue, such a baseless war must be avoided at all costs.

 

"The Bush administration has provided the American public with little more than rhetorically laced speculation," said Ritter. "There has been nothing in the way of substantive fact presented that makes the case that Iraq possesses these weapons or has links to international terror, that Iraq poses a threat to the United States of America worthy of war."

 

Ritter regaled the crowd with stories of his time in Iraq with UNSCOM. The basis for the coming October war is the continued existence of a weapons program that threatens America. Ritter noted explicitly that Iraq, of course, had these weapons at one time - he spent seven years there tracking them down. At the outset, said Ritter, they lied about it. They failed to declare the existence of their biological and nuclear programs after the Gulf War, and declared less than 50% of their chemical and missile stockpiles. They hid everything they could, as cleverly as they could.

 

After the first lie, Ritter and his team refused to believe anything else they said. For the next seven years, the meticulously tracked down every bomb, every missile, every factory designed to produce chemical, biological and nuclear weaponry. They went to Europe and found the manufacturers who sold them the equipment. They got the invoices and shoved them into the faces of Iraqi officials. They tracked the shipping of these materials and cross-referenced this data against the invoices. They lifted the foundations of buildings destroyed in the Gulf War to find wrecked research and development labs, at great risk to their lives, and used the reams of paperwork there to cross-reference what they had already cross-referenced.

 

Everything they found was later destroyed in place.

 

After a while, the Iraqis knew Ritter and his people were robotically thorough. Fearing military retaliation if they hid anything, the Iraqis instituted a policy of full disclosure. Still, Ritter believed nothing they said and tracked everything down. By the time he was finished, Ritter was mortally sure that he and his UNSCOM investigators had stripped Iraq of 90-95% of all their weapons of mass destruction.

 

What of the missing 10%? Is this not still a threat? Ritter believes that the ravages of the Gulf War accounted for a great deal of the missing material, as did the governmental chaos caused by sanctions. The Iraqis' policy of full disclosure, also, was of a curious nature that deserved all of Ritter's mistrust. Fearing the aforementioned attacks, Iraq instituted a policy of destroying whatever Ritter's people had not yet found, and then pretending it never existed in the first place. Often, the dodge failed to fool UNSCOM. That some of it did also accounts for a portion of that missing 10%.

 

Ritter told a story about running down 98 missiles the Iraqis tried to pretend never existed. UNSCOM got hold of the documentation describing them, and demanded proof that they had, in fact, been destroyed. He was brought to a field where, according to Iraqi officials, the missiles had been blown up and then buried. At this point, Ritter and his team became "forensic archaeologists," digging up every single missile component they could find there.

 

After sifting through the bits and pieces to find parts bearing serial numbers, they went to Russia, who sold Iraq the weapons in the first place. They cross-referenced the serial numbers with the manufacturer's records, and confirmed the data with the shipping invoices. When finished, they had accounted for 96 of the missiles. Left over was a pile of metal with no identifying marks, which the Iraqis claimed were the other two missiles. Ritter didn't believe them, but could go no further with the investigation.

 

This story was telling in many ways. Americans mesmerized with stories of lying Iraqis who never told the weapons inspectors the truth about anything should take note of the fact that Ritter was led to exactly the place where the Iraqis themselves had destroyed their weapons without being ordered to. The pile of metal left over from this investigation that could not be identified means Iraq, technically, could not receive a 100% confirmation that all its weapons were destroyed. Along with the other mitigating factors described above, it seems clear that 100% compliance under the UNSCOM rules was impossible to achieve. 90-95%, however, is an impressive record.

 

The fact that chemical and biological weapons ever existed in the first place demands action, according to the Bush administration. After all, they could have managed to hide vast amounts of the stuff from Ritter's investigators. Iraq manufactured three kinds of these nerve agents: VX, Sarin and Tabou. Some alarmists who want war with Iraq describe 20,000 munitions filled with Sarin and Tabou nerve agents that could be used against Americans.

 

The facts, however, allay the fears. Sarin and Tabou have a shelf life of five years. Even if Iraq had somehow managed to hide this vast number of weapons from Ritter's people, what they are now storing is nothing more than useless and completely harmless goo.

 

The VX gas was of a greater concern to Ritter. It is harder to manufacture than the others, but once made stable, it can be kept for much longer. Ritter's people found the VX manufacturing facility that the Iraqis claimed never existed totally destroyed, hit by a Gulf War bomb on January 23, 1991. The field where the material they had manufactured was subsequently buried underwent more forensic archaeology to determine that whatever they had made had also been destroyed. All of this, again, was cross-referenced and meticulously researched.

 

"The research and development factory is destroyed," said Ritter. "The product of that factory is destroyed. The weapons they loaded up have been destroyed. More importantly, the equipment procured from Europe that was going to be used for their large-scale VX nerve agent factory was identified by the special commission - still packed in its crates in 1997 - and destroyed. Is there a VX nerve agent factory in Iraq today? Not on your life."

 

This is, in and of itself, a bold statement. Ritter himself and no weapons inspection team has set foot in Iraq since 1998. Ritter believed Iraq technically capable of restarting its weapons manufacturing capabilities within six months of his departure. That leaves some three and one half years to manufacture and weaponize all the horrors that has purportedly motivated the Bush administration to attack.

 

"Technically capable," however, is the important phrase here. If no one were watching, Iraq could do this. But they would have to start completely from scratch, having been deprived of all equipment, facilities and research because of Ritter's work. They would have to procure the complicated tools and technology required through front companies, which would be detected. The manufacture of chemical and biological weapons emits vented gasses that would have been detected by now if they existed. The manufacture of nuclear weapons emits gamma rays that would have been detected by now if they existed. We have been watching, via satellite and other means, and we have seen none of this.

 

"If Iraq was producing weapons today, we would have definitive proof," said Ritter, "plain and simple."

 

And yet we march to war, and soon. A chorus of voices was raised in the room asking why we are going. What motivates this, if not hard facts and true threats? According to Ritter, it comes down to opportunistic politics and a decade of hard anti-Hussein rhetoric that has boxed the Bush administration into a rhetorical corner.

 

Back in 1991, the UN Security Council mandated the destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Sanctions were placed upon Iraq to pressure them to comply. The first Bush administration signed on to this, but also issued a covert finding that mandated the removal of Saddam Hussein. Even if all the weapons were destroyed, Bush Sr. would not lift the sanctions until Hussein was gone.

 

Bush Sr., and Clinton after him, came to realize that talking about removing Hussein was far, far easier than achieving that goal. Hussein was, and remains, virtually coup-proof. No one could get close enough to put a bullet in him, and no viable intelligence existed to pinpoint his location from day to day. Rousing a complacent American populace to support the massive military engagement that would have been required to remove Hussein by force presented insurmountable political obstacles. The tough talk about confronting Hussein continued, but the Bush and Clinton administrations treaded water.

 

This lack of results became exponentially more complicated. Politicians began making a living off of demonizing Hussein, and lambasting Clinton for failing to have him removed. The roots of our current problem began to deepen at this point, for it became acceptable to encapsulate a nation of 20 million citizens in the visage of one man who was hated and reviled in bipartisan fashion. Before long, the American people knew the drill - Saddam is an evil threat and must be met with military force, period.

 

In 1998, the Republican-controlled Congress passed the Iraqi Liberation Act. The weight of public American law now demanded the removal of Saddam Hussein. The American government went on to use data gathered by UNSCOM, narrowly meant to pinpoint possible areas of investigation, to choose bombing targets in an operation called Desert Fox. Confrontation, rather than resolution, continued to be the rule. By 1999, however, Hussein was still in power.

 

"An open letter was written to Bill Clinton in the fall of 1999," said Ritter, "condemning him for failing to fully implement the Iraqi Liberation Act. It demanded that he use the American military to facilitate the Iraqi opposition's operations inside Iraq, to put troops on the ground and move on up to Baghdad to get rid of Saddam. Who signed this letter? Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage, Robert Zoellick, Richard Perle, and on and on and on."

 

The removal of Saddam Hussein became a plank in the GOP's race for the Presidency in 2000. After gaining office, George W. Bush was confronted with the reality that he and many within his administration had spent a great amount of political capital promising that removal. Once in power, however, he came to realize what his father and Clinton already knew - talking tough was easy, and instigating pinprick military confrontations was easy, but removing Hussein from power was not easy at all. His own rhetoric was all around him, however, pushing him into that corner which had only one exit. Still, like the two Presidents before him, he treaded water.

 

Then came September 11th. Within days, Bush was on television claiming that the terrorists must have had state-sponsored help, and that state sponsor must be Iraq. When the anthrax attacks came, Bush blamed Iraq again. Both times, he had no basis whatsoever in fact for his claims. The habit of lambasting Iraq, and the opportunity to escape the rhetorical box twelve years of hard-talking American policy, were too juicy to ignore.

 

The dearth of definitive proof of an Iraqi threat against America began to go international. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld appeared before NATO not long ago and demanded that they support America's looming Iraq war. Most of the NATO nations appeared ready to do so - they trusted that America's top defense official would not come before them and lie. But when they tried to ask questions of him about the basis for this war, Rumsfeld absolutely refused to answer any of them. Instead, he offered this regarding our utter lack of meaningful data to support a conflict: "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."

 

Scott Ritter appeared before NATO some days after this at their invitation to offer answers to their questions. Much of what he told them was mirrored in his comments in that Boston classroom. After he was finished, 16 of the 19 NATO nations present wrote letters of complaint to the American government about Rumsfeld's comments, and about our basis for war. American UN representatives boycotted this hearing, and denounced all who gave ear to Ritter.

 

Some have claimed that the Bush administration may hold secret evidence pointing to a threat within Iraq, one that cannot be exposed for fear of compromising a source. Ritter dismissed this out of hand in Boston. "If the administration had such secret evidence," he said, "we'd be at war in Iraq right now. We wouldn't be talking about it. It would be a fait accompli." Our immediate military action in Afghanistan, whose ties to Al Qaeda were manifest, lends great credence to this point.

 

Ritter dismissed oil as a motivating factor behind our coming war with Iraq. He made a good defense of this claim. Yes, Iraq has the second-largest oil reserves on earth, a juicy target for the petroleum-loving Bush administration. But the U.S. already buys some 68% of all the oil produced in Iraq. "The Navy ships in the Gulf who work to interdict the smuggling of Iraqi oil," said Ritter, "are fueled by Iraqi oil." Iraq's Oil Minister has stated on camera that if the sanctions are lifted, Iraq will do whatever it takes to see that America's oil needs are fulfilled. "You can't get a better deal than that," claimed Ritter.

 

His thinking on this aspect of the coming war may be in error. That sort of logic exists in an all-things-being-equal world of politics and influence, a world that has ceased to exist. Oil is a coin in the bargaining, peddled as influence to oil-state congressmen and American petroleum companies by the Iraqi National Congress to procure support for this baseless conflict. Invade, says the INC, put us in power, and you will have all you want. There are many ruling in America today, both in government and business, who would shed innocent blood for this opportunity.

 

Ritter made no bones about the fact that Saddam Hussein is an evil man. Like most Americans, however, he detests being lied to. His work in Iraq, and his detailed understanding of the incredible technological requirements for the production of weapons of mass destruction, leads him to believe beyond question that there is no basis in fact or in the needs of national security for a war in Iraq. This Marine, this Republican who seemed so essentially hawkish that no one in that Boston classroom would have been surprised to find wings under his natty blue sportcoat, called the man he cast a Presidential vote for a liar.

 

"The clock is ticking," he said, "and it's ticking towards war. And it's going to be a real war. It's going to be a war that will result in the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. It's a war that is going to devastate Iraq. It's a war that's going to destroy the credibility of the United States of America. I just came back from London, and I can tell you this - Tony Blair may talk a good show about war, but the British people and the bulk of the British government do not support this war. The Europeans do not support this war. NATO does not support this war. No one supports this war."

 

It is of a certainty that few in the Muslim world support another American war with Iraq. Osama bin Laden used the civilian suffering in Iraq under the sanctions to demonstrate to his followers the evils of America and the West. Another war would exacerbate those already-raw emotions. After 9/11, much of the Islamic world repudiated bin Laden and his actions. Another Iraq war would go a long way to proving, in the minds of many Muslims, that bin Laden was right all along. The fires of terrorism that would follow this are unimaginable.

 

Scott Ritter wants to be present as a witness on Monday when the Foreign Relations Committee convenes its hearing, a hearing that will decide whether or not America goes to war in Iraq. He wants to share the information he delivered in that Boston classroom with Senators who have spent too many years listening to, or propounding, rhetorical and speculative fearmongering about an Iraqi threat to America that does not exist. Instead, he wants the inspectors back in Iraq, doing their jobs. He wants to try and keep American and Iraqi blood from being spilled in a military exercise promulgated by right-wing ideologues that may serve no purpose beyond affecting the outcome of the midterm Congressional elections in November 2002.

 

"This is not theory," said Ritter in Boston as he closed his comments. "This is real. And the only way this war is going to be stopped is if Congress stops this war."

 

- - - - - - - - - -

 

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will meet to hear evidence regarding the Iraqi threat to America on Monday, July 29th. The sitting members of this Committee are:

 

Joseph Biden – Chairman

(202) 224-5225

Fax: (202) 224-0139

 

Paul Sarbanes – Maryland

(202) 224-4524

 

Chris Dodd – Connecticut

(202) 224-2823

 

John Kerry – Massachusetts

(202) 224-2742

Fax: (202) 224-8525

 

Russell Feingold – Wisconsin

(202) 224-5323

 

Paul Wellstone – Minnesota

(202) 224-5641

Fax: (202) 224-8438

 

Barbara Boxer – California

(202) 224-3553

 

Robert Toricelli – New Jersey

(202) 224-3224

 

Bill Nelson – Florida

(202) 224-5274

Fax: (202) 228-2183

 

Jay Rockefeller – West Virginia

(202) 224-6472

Fax: (202) 224-7665

 

In order for Scott Ritter to have a chance to speak before the Committee, these individuals must be convinced that the American people want him, and his information, to be part of the conversation. Phone calls and faxes are best – the mail is unreliable and slow after the anthrax attacks, and email is virtually ignored.

 

The speech given by Scott Ritter in Boston will be broadcast between 7:00 am and 9:00 am on WMFO radio this Thursday, July 25th. The radio station has a webcast at http://www.WFMO.org. A CD of a speech delivered by Ritter on July 2nd on this topic can be procured from the Traprock Peace Center, 103A Keets Road, Deerfield MA 01342 | (413) 773-7427.

 

Time is short.

 

[Darth Groovy]

Okay, I apologize but this is getting out of hand. It was intended as a gag but is turning into a heated political debate. I am asking a moderator or admin to please lock this one down and let it die. Thank you very much.

 

"Thank you for your cooperation, good night!"

 

_Robocop:robocop:

[Mafia_Jabba]

Nice...I didn't real the whole thing but mabe there is something in it to go against what im about to say.

 

If he can rebuilt those weapons in 3 years, isn't it smarter to take him out now while he doesn't have them?

[Old_Ben]

Groovy I don't think there's anything wrong with a political debate here. Even if it started of as a joke I don't think there's been any flaming, just facts being presented. In a forum where there isn't much real serious discusion it's a nice change to talk about.

[Darth Groovy]

Originally posted by Old_Ben

Groovy I don't think there's anything wrong with a political debate here. Even if it started of as a joke I don't think there's been any flaming, just facts being presented. In a forum where there isn't much real serious discusion it's a nice change to talk about.

 

Alright then, as long as someone is bennefiting from it. I usually stay clear of politics so I am not going to post here anymore. No offense.

[Mafia_Jabba]

I for one trust our guys in office. They aren't stupid. They will not start a war over politics because they know the American public and media isn't completely stupid. They will find out. I trust Congress and The executive branch that they will make the right decision. I think a lot of that is speculation and paranoia, looking at a coin and thinking what else is it? you know what I mean?

[Jedi_Monk]

If he can rebuilt those weapons in 3 years, isn't it smarter to take him out now while he doesn't have them?

Did you get to this part?

 

"Technically capable," however, is the important phrase here. If no one were watching, Iraq could do this. But they would have to start completely from scratch, having been deprived of all equipment, facilities and research because of Ritter's work. They would have to procure the complicated tools and technology required through front companies, which would be detected. The manufacture of chemical and biological weapons emits vented gasses that would have been detected by now if they existed. The manufacture of nuclear weapons emits gamma rays that would have been detected by now if they existed. We have been watching, via satellite and other means, and we have seen none of this.

 

"If Iraq was producing weapons today, we would have definitive proof," said Ritter, "plain and simple."

So, basically, if we see evidence of him making these weapons, we can do something about it... there's no evidence, and as the situation stands now, if we went to war, people would die (American soldiers and Iraqi civilians) just for the sake of domestic politics.

 

[Old_Ben]

Richard Butler told a US Senate committee that Iraq had stepped up the production of chemical and biological weapons since UN inspections ended four years ago - and might even be close to developing a nuclear bomb.

 

Monk this is from the BBC which definatley isn't a Republican controlled news group that reports that the UN says that Iraq is definatley creating chem and bio weapons and that they may be close to Nuclear Weapons.

 

What would Bush gain by fighting Iraq even after his father lost the presidency after fighting over there. Plus there must actually be something going on with Saddam if Clinton bombed him.

[Jedi_Monk]

Reading the article, the BBC is giving no opinion here, they're merely reporting what Butler said. And how does Butler know? How did he back up his words? The article gave no indications. It could just be more rhetoric. In fact, the last word in that article is a cautionary one from Senator Kerry, warning that if we were to move now, we would alienate our long-time allies.

 

[Old_Ben]

After looking at the facts of the problems with Iraq, you're right in that they pose no threat to the citizens of the United States. Im kind of dissapointed in Bush for taking the terrorism approach at his reason for sending in the military. I think that he sees the hatred for terrorism in the US as a good way to get public support for a war. The US has had a lot of problems with Saddam in the past making trouble in the middle east. Bush feels that if he could get him out of the way as a threat then there will be a big leap toward more peace in that region. This is probably not the way togo about it though. This war will just end us up with alot more problems and Iraq the same as it is and hundreds of dead americans. i still think that Bush has done a good job so far as president and hope that he uses good judgement in his dealing with Iraq and any other problem that may arise for the rest of his term.

[Mafia_Jabba]

different views=america

[JrKASperov]

Yoda is SO gonna win!

 

But seriously, Bush is a far more greater evil than Gore... SO I want Bush to get his ass kicked! That guy a)looks bad b)acts bad....

[Floydian]

Originally posted by JrKASperov

Yoda is SO gonna win!

 

But seriously, Bush is a far more greater evil than Gore... SO I want Bush to get his ass kicked! That guy a)looks bad b)acts bad....

 

Yeah...way to back up your opinion with good reason...

 

Like i said about 100 threads back...All politicians are crooks, it's just the lesser of two evils you should be picking from. For me, it was Gore's dealing with the Communist Chinese during his VP time that put up a red flag for me (no pun intended). At the same time he was taking contributions from the chinese, we were losing top-secret documents and materials from Los Alamos...coincidence? Losing guided missile technology to the chinese -- that's damned scary!

 

I take my National Security very seriously. I was also astounded to hear of the recent theft of laptops from a military base in Florida (under Bush's watch, mine you). For me, I want a President who I know will protect me, and if you put Bush and Gore next to eachother, Gore does not stand a chance in that arena.

[Mafia_Jabba]

How can Bush actually watch laptops to make sure they aren't being stolen? How can you blame him for this?

[Floydian]

Originally posted by Mafia_Jabba

How can Bush actually watch laptops to make sure they aren't being stolen? How can you blame him for this?

 

I'm not blaming Bush. I'm just trying to say that our security in top-secret institutions and military bases needs to be examined a little bit. Our National Security is in their hands, and they need to protect our nations secrets a little better. The laptops that were missing (I'm not sure if they've been recoved yet) contained sensitive information on a possible attack on Iraq...it just makes me sick!

 

My point was more against the Clinton/Gore years with all the news of national security compromises during their term. I only put the Bush part in to show that I recognize that something similar has happened recently.

 

Now, lets make room for Jedi_Monk to go find some more favorable "expert" quotes to debunk all of this

[Mafia_Jabba]

i see

[Jedi_Monk]

Stepping up to the challenge...

The key compromised U.S. secret that apparently helped China's nuclear weapons program was the blueprint for the W-88 miniaturized nuclear warhead. It was given to the communist Chinese in 1988, the last year of Ronald Reagan’s presidency, according to documents given to U.S. authorities by a Chinese defector.

 

The communist Chinese tested their W-88-style warhead in 1992, the last year of the Bush administration. The secrets were lost before Bill Clinton and Al Gore took office.

 

The Chinese defector turned over the documents about the espionage in 1995. A few years later, when the American public first learned of the documents, the Republicans used fuzzy logic and heated rhetoric to turn the lost nuclear secrets into an attack theme against the Democratic administration.

 

Some prominent conservatives accused President Clinton and Vice President Gore of "appeasement" and even treason. The furor overwhelmed any careful examination of the evidence.

 

But the evidence continues to build that the hemorrhage of nuclear secrets occurred on the Reagan-Bush watch. Recently, federal investigators have begun translating other documents from the Chinese defector and have learned that the exposure of nuclear secrets in the 1980s was worse than previously thought.

The whole article is here: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2000/102700a.html

 

Hope that helps.