Iraq - Not about WMDs or Bush's Daddy

[finnbow]

In general, I don't believe in conspiracy theories because of the number of people who would need to be involved, their complexity of doing things involving multiple government agencies and involve only people loyal to the conspiracy, and the inability for anybody in Washington to keep a secret.

[JonL]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

I think it's all part of it. The reality is, everyone knew Iraq was a problem. At least the leadership. Look at top Dems statements about Saddam before they could blame Bush.

Sanctions, bah. For Iraq they obviously failed. Cop out.

Pete

Sanctions for Iraq obviously worked. Saddam had no WMDs. His regular army collapsed quickly. He was no threat to anyone outside his borders. His posturing was for domestic consumption and to attempt to keep Iran from getting any ideas.

[flacaltenn]

JonL:

I don't believe that even the most trigger-happy administration would go to war over a largely failed bombing attempt and the downing of a single airplane in a terrorist attack. If they had evidence, or could even concoct seemingly credible evidence linking Iraq to these events, the response would be severe but measured. A limited airstrike on military targets, a tightening of sanctions, even covert ops... but not the all-out war we waged.

There is a huge diff JonL between a pre-emptive war based on trumped up (or at least limited) evidence and a direct attack by a foreign power on American soil or interests. I believe downing a jet off NYC with a military S-A missile or bombing the WTC is an act of war. And further, if the perp is ALREADY on probabation, you've got to neutralize him permanently. And Clinton had already done the intense bombing stuff. Would have had to step up to a decapitation.

I think at first the Clinton Admin MAY have actually believed that the WTC 1 bombing should be a law enforcement problem (I disagree), but later discovered that they lost the ability to prove a state connection to Iraq by doing that. Couldn't reconstruct enough solid evidence after the fact to convince the public that Saddam needed to be taken out.

In the case of Flight 800, it was speculated that a "Stinger" type missile could easily be launched from a small craft off Long Island. And it would have been very embarrassing to pursue this since the USA GAVE those missiles to the Mujahadin in Afghanistan. It was that missile that TURNED the Russians out of that country. Gave the Arab fighters the ability to neutralize USSR helicopter, air cover. At that point, if the govt knew it was a terrorist action (sponsored by Saddam) , it might have been just made a note, closed the investigation because the larger concern was a possible "pre-emptive" strike against Al Queada first. Don't know. But I'm fairly convinced this was a terrorist act.

[piece-itpete]

This isn't a conspiracy theory in the normal sense, as befits PC

There were a number of reasons to take out the Butcher. Because 'It's a slam dunk, Mr President' got top billing doesn't change that.

Examining Pres Clintons statements it's very clear to me that he would've been happy to take him out. As far as WMD the entire freaking world believed it, based on missing items listed by Saddam from the first Gulf action, and of course Saddams' own statements and actions.

Pete

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

As far as WMD the entire freaking world believed it, based on missing items listed by Saddam from the first Gulf action, and of course Saddams' own statements and actions.

Not so. The chief of the UN weapons inspection team, an American (and a Republican), didn't even believe it.

[flacaltenn]

In general, I don't believe in conspiracy theories because of the number of people who would need to be involved, their complexity of doing things involving multiple government agencies and involve only people loyal to the conspiracy, and the inability for anybody in Washington to keep a secret.

In general, I agree Finbow. That's why I don't delve into each of these "conspiracies" further. I only use them as examples to build up a rational explanation of how 2 DEM/REP administrations (16 years) managed to mangle our foreign policy on Iraq so badly.

But, when the govt "shuts down" and investigation or redirects it intentionally, like in the case of Flight 800, there are fewer secrets to hide. And trust me on this (you too D-Ray), when an airplane crashes and the CIA gets called in to make a cartoon depiction of the data on the flight data recorder for release to the network news agencies, rather than the NTSB or the FCC, somethin's not right...

You can hide stuff pretty efficiently, even with thousands of folk involved. Why do you think that WikiLeaks was such a big deal?

Usually, conspiracies start BECAUSE the govt does something stupid or suspicious. Like losing the big metal door at the Branch Davidian compound that would have contained evidence of who fired first. Incompetence? Hard to tell. But when you have Texas Ranger witnesses saying the FBI carted off that door -- voila --- you have a conspiracy.

Or when the govt decides to do a limited release of the flight voice recorder for Flt 93, the 9/11 jet crashed in Penn -- but CLASSIFY the flight data recorder and NOT release that item which would reveal if perhaps WE shot it down, -- voila -- another conspiracy.

In almost ALL of the most convincing conspiracies I know, the govt has the ability to quash them IMMEDIATELY by releasing some key information, but for some dam reason, just decides to let them flail... Incompetence? or Hiding something? The conspirisists claim hiding, the non-believers must think it's just incompetence.. Advantage to ---- the conspirisists...

Hey -- just like Obama's long form certificate!!
Maybe a new age of clearing the air???

[piece-itpete]

Jon, the sanctions were falling apart.

Pete

[JonL]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Jon, the sanctions were falling apart.

Pete

Good thing we fixed the problem with a liberal dose of death and destruction and all the wonderful spin-offs thereof.

[flacaltenn]

Let me help Pete::

Finbow: Resolution of EU Parliament in 2000...

http://www.medea.be/index.html?page=2&lang=en&doc=418

1. Reiterates its position as expressed in its abovementioned resolution of 13 April 2000 and calls upon the UN Security Council to commence a dialogue with a view to lifting the economic embargo while maintaining a strict arms embargo on Iraq;

2. Proposes sending parliamentary fact-finding delegations with a view to opening a dialogue to establish how the oil-for-food programme can be extended to improve the living conditions of the Iraqi people;

3. Expresses its belief that EU diplomacy should try to bring about a lifting of the no-fly zone, together with a formal renunciation by the Iraqi Government of the use of military force in dealing with the demands for autonomy of the Kurdish people;

4. Reiterates the need for the UN, WHO and Red Cross to continue to monitor the importation and equitable distribution of goods and services, so that the benefits thereof reach the most deprived and vulnerable people in Iraq;

And more.... stuff. One of 6 or 8 resolutions DEPLORING the continuing policy of pummeling and punishment..

Or how about?

"We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral." Denis Halliday, after resigning as first UN Assistant Secretary General and Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, The Independent, 15 October 1998

From a PBS frontline episode...

Albright's tough new stance seemed oddly out of step with the trends; even as the U.S. position grew tougher, other countries were taking steps to bring Saddam's regime back into the international fold --without any change in government.

In the first half of 1997, a growing number of America's partners in the coalition sent diplomats back to Baghdad and struck commercial deals. Italy, Spain, and Greece reopened embassies in Baghdad, while France staffed an interest section there for the first time in seven years. All of these moves indicated a de facto acceptance of the rogue regime. Two delegations of Italian parliamentarians, and one of French, visited Iraq for talks, while a former senior French military officer headed a group of business executives from some 50 companies that staged a three-day "fair" in an attempt to secure business contracts.

No more proof needed... It was a failed and despised policy that needed to be changed.
So much for "bush's war".. At least he had the sense to make a change.. Even if it wasn't the best option..
That's why it's so irritating to me to hear the leftists TRY to rewrite history by intimating that Bush's war was simply about oil or his Daddy. ACTUALLY history will take into account the 1st 12 years of failed Iraq policy AS WELL AS the less than ideal Bush Solution..

[flacaltenn]

D-ray::

The distrust of the government exhibited in your initial post sounds like some of the statements that people were nailing Rev. Jeremiah Wright for making.

Distrust of a govt as large and powerful and corruptable as ours is a GOOD thing. I guess I'll grant the Reverend that. And I support him in his "American's chickens -- are coming home to roost" statement after 9.11. Because the left USUALLY tries to excuse brutal murders by trying to understand the motives and victimhood of the accused. So asking WHY AL Queada attacked us is a valid and interesting question even if it doesn't advise as to what our reaction should be. And if you listened to OBL, his main justifications for 9.11 were:

A) our pummeling and deprivation of the Iraqi people for too long.
B) presence of American Forces on the Arabian Peninsula to support the "containment".
(and a whole bunch of irrelevent distorted other reasons)

As much as it pains anyone to admit it. Bush's war solved BOTH the containment action and the bases in Saudi.

But Reverend Wright goes waaay too far in EXCUSING himself from the actions of America and criticizing by EXCLUDING himself as co-responsible for this country's action. I can't do that. I AM a citizen of this country and I am responsible for it's actions..