INSIDE STORY: Hussein son's wild orders led to Iraq military collapse

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | May 25, 2003 | Robert Collier

[gedeon3]

"If fought man to man, I promise we would have won."

Even after being crushed, this idiot thinks his soldiers were better than ours. Either way they would have been killed.

[Frapster]

I am right there with you on the progression of thought that led us to war with Iraq. However, it is still significant to me that we are producing nothing of substance as a result of this war where WMDs are concerned. While there are many benefits to this war and I believe it's ultimately a good thing, I am not comfortable that Bush would overstate anything to achieve an end. The end does not justify the means. As for what would drive a dictator to destroy his regime rather than cooperate with the UN inspectors? The same thing that caused him to waste tens of thousands of lives by issuing worthless battle commands - sheer lunacy.

Don't get me wrong - I have believed my president and his staff every time they said Saddam was a threat. I trusted, without any sustantial evidence, that Saddam was a threat. I have used the same line of logic that you just presented to me and also trusted that the administration was protecting the lives and integrity of their information gathering system - I have believed almost blindly if not rationally. I expect the evidence to be presented, clearly, quantifiably and measurably. Why? Because of the men and women who died for Bush fighting this war. And also because of the tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers who died under American fire because a mad man ruled their country. People will disagree with me but I believe the cost in human life requires a high level of accountability by our President.

[SamAdams76]

I am not comfortable that Bush would overstate anything to achieve an end. The end does not justify the means.

But how would Bush know until we actually went in there and saw for ourselves. Bush was concerned that the Iraqis had WMDs and we had much probable cause based on the fact that the Iraqis had them and used them in the past and also that they had spent the past 12 years thumbing their noses at the UN Security Council. Were we supposed to be content to take the word of the Iraqis and let Hans Blix spend another six years talking about how we are "making progress" and going off to receptions to eat finger sandwiches off fine china and sip tea?

I don't think Bush deliberately deceived anybody. He saw the intelligence reports and believed that the Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the United States. Maybe not today and maybe not next year. But after 9/11, you don't sit around waiting for something to happen. The stakes are too high. We can't afford another 9/11. That's what this is all about. We must take the initiative and take action before they have a chance to hit us because if they hit us first, it could be a major hit and many thousands could die. We need to get used to the idea that under the new rules of the game, we are sometimes going to take pre-emptive action. Sort of like what Israel did in 1981 when they bombed that nuclear facility in Iraq. Israel took a lot of heat for that but I think we are all glad today that they did.

[Common Tator]

You have failed to learn the most elementary rules of how our system of government works. Presidents can do what ever the people will tolerated them doing. Abraham Lincoln suspended the right of habeas corpus during the civil war. Habeas Corpus is the most fundamental human right upon which all others depend. A citizen that can be arrested by the government and denied the right to courts, and legal representation has no rights at all. A citizen without the right of habeas corpus has no rights. Lincoln did it with an edict. He had no legal or constitutional right to do so. But he did it and the people cheered. So they built the memorial for the man that took away the most fundamental human right based on the end justifies the means. Guess what? According to the American People it did have that right. And that is all he needed.

FDR trampled on the most basic human rights of Japanese American citizens in WWII. The American people supported it, so he got away with it. Roosevelt could put people behind bars for no reason and not be punished. The Japanese Americans in WWII lost all their rights. None of the bill of rights applied to them, no matter what that silly piece of parchment said. Nixon sent some guys to look around in the Democratic headquarters office, and had to resign. Had he not resigned he would have been put in prison for it. I guess snooping in Larry O'Brien's office is a lot worse crime than putting innocent people in concentration camps for years.

If you learn nothing else from my posts, try to understand how our system works. The law and constitution are what ever the judges say it is. And it is legal for a President to do whatever the people will let him do. There are no down sides for him to do things that have wide support from the public. Not now and never has been.

Lincoln had it right. This is a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people. If the people are for it, it does not matter how "illegal or accountable" you think a president must be.

All that is required is public support. Presidents from Jefferson to Dubya (including Clinton) have used that characteristic of the United States Government. It ain't nothin new'. ..

Welcome to the real world... it ain't nothin' like what is in your school books.

[TomB]

But after 9/11, you don't sit around waiting for something to happen. The stakes are too high. We can't afford another 9/11. That's what this is all about. We must take the initiative and take action before they have a chance to hit us because if they hit us first, it could be a major hit and many thousands could die.

Here's another question for AVRWC to ignore. Suppose Bush, right after getting into office had decided to go into Afghanistan and take out the Taleban and dismantle Al Qaeda on the basis of intelligence reports that they were planning terrorist attacks inside the US.

How bad would you have been screaming then? Based on your opposition now, we can safely assume it would have been LOUD.

[Frapster]

My issue with what you said about Bush overstating gave me the impression that it seemed tolerable if not acceptable that he used 'overstatement' as a tool to achieve his ends. It's an entirely forgiveable matter if they believed one thing based upon their intelligence and it turned out their intelligence was wrong. The rest of the world may not be so forgiving but ontentionally 'overstating' is nothing more than manipulation and lieing and I would find that completely intolerable.

[Frapster]

You have told me nothing I don't already know. The point you're missing is that I will not give up believing that our leaders have a moral responsibility to deal honestly with their people. While I fully accept that people are human and that power corrupts I still cling to my ideals. I am not shattered when those ideals are not realized but neither do my convictions waiver as a result.

[Common Tator]

The point you're missing is that I will not give up believing that our leaders have a moral responsibility to deal honestly with their people.

This is a nation, of the people, for the people, and by the people. It has nothing to do with morals. Americans claim to have morals. But what is moral is what they apporve of today. Tomorrow there will be different morals. That is the only principle. Didn't Bill Clinton teach you anything?

What you are saying is you understand that what you believe is a fantasy. But you will not give up believing in your fantasy.

What part of your having no chance to have an impact on policy and public opinion do you like most?

[Frapster]

What I learned from Bill Clinton is that the world has embraced your outlook on life. That doesn't mean I should. As for having an impact upon policy and public opinion - my impact is the same as yours.

[JimRed]

At what point was the war going well for the Iraquis? I must have missed that.

Maybe they were watching CNN or listening to the BBC.

[WOSG]

And his links to terrorists.

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

Here's another question for AVRWC to ignore. Suppose Bush, right after getting into office had decided to go into Afghanistan and take out the Taleban and dismantle Al Qaeda on the basis of intelligence reports that they were planning terrorist attacks inside the US.

How bad would you have been screaming then? Based on your opposition now, we can safely assume it would have been LOUD.

Yet another example of how deeply stupid it is to come up with hypotheticals.

Suppose that... based on neighbors' phone calls, W realized that Scott Peterson was planning to kill his pregnant wife. Therefore, W dispatched a couple of secret service agents to Southern CA who slashed Scott's throat...

Now... taking the cold shower of reality... W DID know that Taliban was hosting Al Queda and Usama and W chose to pay the Taliban some $48,0000,000 of our money. Some of it might have financed terrorist operations.

And... suppose your idiotic scenario took place... remember that the AlQuaeda perpetrators were already in the U.S. so... W could have 'dismantled' Al Quaeda in Afghanistan all he wanted. His continuous refusal to do anything effective about protecting our borders and kicking illegals out of the country would have guaranteed that 9/11 was going to take place, regardless.

[TomB]

I notice you decided to ignore the rest of my posts. Since you did, I'll ask the main question again:

How could Reagan possibly CREATE AN ENTIRELY NEW CABINET DEPT. and still call himself a 'conservative'? Or was that the all-powerful VICE-President Bush's fault too?

Yet another example of how deeply stupid it is to come up with hypotheticals.

Face it, you call them "stupid", because they expose your agenda, bash Bush at any opportunity.

W DID know that Taliban was hosting Al Queda and Usama and W chose to pay the Taliban some $48,0000,000 of our money. Some of it might have financed terrorist operations.

It was $43 million. If you are going to lie, at least get the number right.

As pretty much everybody on the planet now knows, that is an out and out lie. Bush did not "pay" the Taleban anything. The Bush Adnimistration sent wheat, moneyand other aid to the United Nations where it distributed it to the Afghan people, bypassing the Taleban completely.

Here is an article that exposes your lie:

U.S. gives $43 million to Afghanistan

The package includes $28 million worth of wheat from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, $5 million in food commodities and $10 million in "livelihood and food security" programs, both from the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Powell said the U.S. aid is administered by the United Nations and non-governmental organizations, and bypasses the Taliban, "who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it."

I can't believe you'd try to spread Scheer's crap around here after it was dismantled over and over. I really demonstrates you desparation.

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

So W fed the terrorists. Is this how far his conservative compassion goes?

[TomB]

So W fed the terrorists. Is this how far his conservative compassion goes?

"So". You lied through your teeth and all you can say is "so"?

That gives everybody a good idea how you treat the truth.

BTW, the terrorists didn't need food, they had all they wanted. That's why the civilian population was starving.

[bullseye1911]

"Because we thought Baghdad was very safe. We never thought the Americans would be able to enter the city."

General Mohammad Massagemyrod was quoted as saying "D'Ohh!"

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

Look, friend, cool off a little and understand that W GAVE the Taliban and therefore Al Queda (I stand corrected) over $120,000,000. The article you linked says so:

Powell said the U.S. aid is administered by the United Nations and non-governmental organizations, and bypasses the Taliban, "who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it."

The sum brings U.S. assistance to $124.2 million for this year, making the United States the largest Afghan donor for the second year in a row.

The 'detail' that the assistance was administered by the UN is nothing by a fig leaf. As we were told by those in the know, UN's 'food for oil' program was Saddam's main source of income. There is nothing to indicate that W's assistance was not controlled by Taliban. If anything, Taliban was a lot more in control of Afghanistan than Saddam was of Iraq.

I don't blame Mr. Bush for sucb mistakes. It's those who make him do and say things that are to be blamed.

[TomB]

understand that W GAVE the Taliban and therefore Al Queda (I stand corrected) over $120,000,000. The article you linked says so:

Well, I'd say your reading comprehension skills need work because "bypasses the Taliban" means specifically opposite of what you allege.

The fact of the matter is that the Iraqi food for oil program was administered by the Iraqi government. The Afghan aid was administered by the UN and NGOs. Note also that the shiphoning in Iraq was well documented while there was no such information concerning Iraq.

Face it, that "GW gave money to the Taleban" is an old and completely discredited story.

[piasa]

Joe Wilson, is that you?