Until We Find ONE WMD in Iraq, Republicans Should Really Calm Down About “Obamacare"

[SJJRSJJS]

Uh, it's called "debate", based on "the rules of engagement". You expect me to engage you, in a civil debate, when you can't even be civil, and avoid ad hominem attacks? To engage you would be to condone your incivility. You might as well follow your true heart and resort to racial pejoratives.....I read "code" very well. And I will not dignify your response with a contextual response. Capice?

And just so you know, there is no context for a white man being a Stephin Fetchit.....you, obviously don't understand the precept or the reference, to use it effectively and accurately, such as it is. LOL

I just put down(KOed) your NO Weapons of Mass Destruction post, so naturally you want to put me down, no pun intended. I said Step in Fetch Shit, do you get it? You know that I know and that is why I will "defeet" you at every level of debate like I have been doing since I made my glorious return to this Forum. Cyber lobotomizing Libs during a heated debate, started by them, was and is my specialty, therefore you cannot win against me, and the sooner you face "realiteee", the less cyber whompings you will have to endure, you dig? Also, "kowtowing" to me now will not help you no mo, put that in your racist code pipe and smoke it...next good shooter, this reverse racist dude has done run out of ammo!

 

[poet]

I just put down(KOed) your NO Weapons of Mass Destruction post, so naturally you want to put me down, no pun intended. I said Step in Fetch Shit, do you get it? You know that I know and that is why I will "defeet" you at every level of debate like I have been doing since I made my glorious return to this Forum. Cyber lobotomizing Libs during a heated debate, started by them, was and is my specialty, therefore you cannot win against me, and the sooner you face "realiteee", the less cyber whompings you will have to endure, you dig? Also, "kowtowing" to me now will not help you no mo, put that in your racist code pipe and smoke it...next good shooter, this reverse racist dude has done run out of ammo!

More masturbation from our austere female resident racist. Girl, whatever. I told you I'm not engaging you, because you cannot honor the rules of engagement, due to your epic stupidity and your claim to "white privilege", which I, of course, dismiss as invalid and far-fetched. Moving on. Sisyphus.

 

[Truth Detector]

No one is calling a statement of opinion by ANYONE a lie. Again... I realize this is just a bit beyond your grammar school english composition level of comprehension, but to state "THERE IS NO DOUBT" of something is a statement of FACT and not a statement of opinion, like saying "I HAVE NO DOUBT" is. Can you see the difference, or is it simply beyond you? When Bush said, "THERE IS NO DOUBT", when he KNEW, in fact, of the existence of doubts within his own administration, that statement was not an opinion. It is a false statement of fact that he knew to be false when he said it.... or, in other words, A LIE.

Okay dimwit; let's try this again. Is the following statement merely an OPINION or is it a statement of FACT:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

Is there any uncertainty in the above statement?

Is the following statement merely an OPINION or is it a statement of FACT:

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

Is there any uncertainty in the above statement?

Is the following statement merely an OPINION or is it a statement of FACT:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

Is there any uncertainty in the above statement?

Is the following statement merely an OPINION or is it a statement of FACT:

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

Is there any uncertainty in the above statement?

Yes Mainman; you really are THAT incredibly stupid and a hyper partisan that refuses to acknowledge you are a partisan dimwit.

 

[Truth Detector]

and when George Bush said "THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT SADDAM HAS STOCKPILES OF WMD's"... that was a statement of fact that he KNEW to be false, because he was well aware of the existent of the very doubt within his own intelligence community that he claimed did not exist.

your willful failure to understand the nuances of our language has long been established.

you're dismissed.

You're completely wrong dimwit; he believed it just as much as these people did who are ALL Democrats; and yes, you really are incredibly stupid and an uninformed hyper partisan of epic proportions.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

 

[Truth Detector]

And for you to suggest that the war was not primarily about WMD's... or that WMD's were not the hammer used to frighten the American into supporting a war against a country that had ZERO to do with the events of 9/11 flies in the face of history. The lie about the certainty of WMD's, when combined with the lie about Iraq's pre-9/11 collusion with 9/11 hijackers, was the linchpin that held Americans in fear of imminent attacks by AQ using Saddam's WMD's. Those two lies created the urgency that Bush needed to invade Iraq IMMEDIATELY, rather than let the UNSCOM inspectors tell us what we later found out for ourselves: that Saddam DIDN'T have stockpiles of WMD's and that he HADN'T restarted his nuclear program.

“Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament.” President Bush, March 6th, 2003

Because you are a dimwit of epic proportions, I am posting the entire Joint Resolution on Iraq for you to read and demand that you tell me how many words in the document relate toi WMDs; I will bold them for you because I know you're a complete idiot and cannot do it for yourself without a LOT of help.

This is the LEGAL justification that Congress VOTED on that is the basis for going into Iraq regardless of your desperate and stupid monoluges to the contrary contianing nothing more than your hyper partisan buffoonish rhetoric.

HJ 114 RH

Union Calendar No. 451

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. J. RES. 114

[Report No. 107-721] To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

October 2, 2002

Mr. HASTERT (for himself and Mr. Gephardt) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

October 7, 2002

Reported with amendments, committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed

[Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert the part printed in italic]

[Strike out the preamble and insert the part printed in italic]

[For text and preamble of introduced joint resolution, see copy of joint resolution as introduced on October 2, 2002]

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas 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;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution. Union Calendar No. 451

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. J. RES. 114

[Report No. 107-721]

JOINT RESOLUTION

 

[Truth Detector]

BS. Saddam was being contained by the UN sanctions, and presented no threat. Karl Rove's design to make "W" a "wartime president to rival his father was the bottom line...but as Cheney disastrously concluded, we would be
welcomed as liberators with leis thrown round our necks, and be back home in time for Xmas. As fate and karma would have it , the exact opposite happened....to the tune of tens of thousands of lives. I use he B, F, C, words but never the N-word( so you just lied, again...)..because I'm calling you what you act like and "are", and Newsflash, you
have never dominated anyone here? Ad hominem attacks? Is supposed to be you definition of dominance?????
Bitch, please. The only thing you can dominate is your own dick, and you probably fuck that up.

More stench from a massive pile of hyper partisan bile; but nothing that can be remotely connected to the truth. But this is standard prose from the forums prolific hyper partisan liar.

 

[Truth Detector]

and when George Bush said "THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT SADDAM HAS STOCKPILES OF WMD's"... that was a statement of fact that he KNEW to be false, because he was well aware of the existent of the very doubt within his own intelligence community that he claimed did not exist.

your willful failure to understand the nuances of our language has long been established.

you're dismissed.

Wrong again dimwit; it was because he believed what Clinton believed shit-for-brains.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Yes, you really are THAT incredibly stupid.

 

[poet]

This message is hidden because Truth Detector is on your ignore list.

Girl, I done moved on.

 

[Truth Detector]

It's always fun to watch the righties trip over themselves trying to give the Dems "credit" for the Iraq War.

Really shows you how successful they really think it was.

You really have shit-for-brains you know that? Who is trying to give Dems credit for the Iraq War? More evidence that you have the reading comprehension of a tadpole with the intelligence of an amoeba.

Moron.

 

[Truth Detector]

what an idiot.

What else would the speaker be referring to? I say many things in life that are not simply opinions that spring up in my mind, but are factual statements to others.

"Your mother just called."

"We're out of milk."

"It's raining."

"The Dow was up last Friday."

or better yet...

"there is no doubt the Dow was up last Friday."

statements of fact, not offerings of opinion.

face it... you're too stupid and too stubborn to admit you comprehend the difference. That's fine... it's no surprise to me...

you're dismissed.

THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON STUPID; DON'T DO STUPID​

​

​

​

​

 

[poet]

Girl, quit stalking me.

 

[Truth Detector]

And what do you say about the intelligence being fixed around the facts, after bush became president?

• As originally reported in the The Sunday Times, May 1, 2005 SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT

I have read these statements and find nothing consistent to suggest that the above supports the moronic talking points of the left.

Clinton made the same claims about policies regarding Iraq but never acted on them. How do these memos equate to Bush lying? Oh that's right, they do not.

You see, for Bush to have been lying, so would the Clinton Administration, the Bush Sr. administration, the Prime Minister of Britain and Australia, the leaders of 34 other nations who joined the coalition and so many Democrats during GWB's Presidency.

Its a moronic talking point that can only be expressed by hyper partisan dimwits in a vacuum of reality, the truth or any facts.

But because you are an incredibly dimwit of epic proportions, you think this is some kind of smoking gun. But that is because you are a dimwit incapable of comprehending that which you read.

Of course another of the moronic talking points claim that Bush was indeed an idiot; so dimwitted that he fooled all these other super intelligentsia and nations into falling for a lie.

Yes, you really are THAT incredibly stupid and partisan.

Moron.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

This message is hidden because Truth Detector is on your ignore list.

Girl, I done moved on.

But as on 11/08, you had already said he was on IA!!
GAWD, YOU'RE SUCH A LIAR.
No wonder the Mayor of Houston snubbed you.

It appears that the following are some of the posters that Aaron the Poet has placed on IA

Agree with me
Aoxomoxoa
Big Money
Boris The AnimalI Love America
Superfreak
SmarterthanYou
Threedee
Truth Detector
USFREEDOM911

 

[NOVA]

No comeback on the Downing Street memo?

I didn't think so.

Not much to say that changes anything....the DSM certainly contains the OPINION of Richard Dearlove that makes the claim ......hes certainly entitled to have that opinion.....he used the phrase "a shift in attitude"....I'm not quite sure what he means by that....
the fact that Bush was set on ousting Saddam in Iraq is nothing new.....that was US Policy from the Clinton administration.....and the constant whining of the Democrats concerning Saddam and WMD was still ongoing from the time Bush was elected....it was not a secret he agreed....

You put a lot stock in Dearlove's opinion about the intell being 'fixed' around the policy and I see for what it actually is...." one man's opinion "....

The DSM also contains other interesting tidbits.....see if you can connect the dots......

According to the DSM.....The minutes also outline potential risks of an invasion of Iraq:

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary."

THAT line alone confirms that those in the UK believed Saddams use of WMD was a definite possibility......in plain English,
they believed Saddam possessed WMD..........that begs the question "intelligence was being fixed around WHAT policy ?
Possibly the policy of ousting Saddam by military force ?....that is most likely what Dearlove was referring to as "policy"..........

So the UK believed just what that list of Democrats and the now Pres. Bush....Saddam had WMD.

 

[maineman]

Okay dimwit; let's try this again. Is the following statement merely an OPINION or is it a statement of FACT:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

Is there any uncertainty in the above statement?

Is the following statement merely an OPINION or is it a statement of FACT:

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

Is there any uncertainty in the above statement?

Is the following statement merely an OPINION or is it a statement of FACT:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

Is there any uncertainty in the above statement?

Is the following statement merely an OPINION or is it a statement of FACT:

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

Is there any uncertainty in the above statement?

Yes Mainman; you really are THAT incredibly stupid and a hyper partisan that refuses to acknowledge you are a partisan dimwit.

1. the Clinton quote does not state, as a matter of fact, that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's.
2. the Albright quote does not state, as a matter of fact, that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's.
3. the first democratic senators' quote does not state, as a matter of fact, that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's.
4. the Graham quote does not state, as a matter of fact, that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's.


Were you stoned during your ESL classes Pedro?

 

[NOVA]

1. the Clinton quote does not state, as a matter of fact, that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's.
2. the Albright quote does not state, as a matter of fact, that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's.
3. the first democratic senators' quote does not state, as a matter of fact, that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's.
4. the Graham quote does not state, as a matter of fact, that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's.


Were you stoned during your ESL classes Pedro?

Damn right....and none of those statements say, as a matter of fact, that Mary had a little lamb...and a few other things aren't mentioned either....

As long as Poncho couldn't answer the guestions, here is the bottom line...

they DO say what they DO say....therefore, they are all statements of fact as seen by the speakers....maybe correct or maybe incorrect, but to each
speaker, facts ...

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/...hould-really-calm-down-a-bit-about-obamacare/


"Anyone who follows my writing knows that I believe Republicans are some of the most hypocritical individuals on the planet. But they’re not strictly limited to hypocrisy. I find many times they completely contradict themselves and often reek of irony.

One such example of their irony (and hypocrisy) is their “outrage” about the fact that some Americans won’t be allowed to keep their current health insurance (because it doesn’t meet the minimum standards established under the Affordable Care Act) despite the fact that President Obama said they would be able to.

Well, President Obama misspoke. Did he lie? I guess some might say he did, but I just don’t see it that way. He simply didn’t include the phrase, “If your current plan meets the basic requirements under the new healthcare law.” The requirements weren’t hidden, so by him omitting that phrase it meant each individual would have had to inquire with their health insurance provide themselves to find out the sustainability of their current insurance plan.

However, for Republicans to say that a president not being fully honest about something is deplorable and condemnable is absolutely astounding.
The party of President George W. Bush — I’m sure everyone remembers him. The man who started a war on the promise that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Otherwise known as “WMD’s.”

Their president took our nation to war on the pretense that we were going to find stockpiles of dangerous weapons which posed a gigantic threat to the United States and our allies. He promised us that Iraq was a threat to our freedom and was a breeding ground for terrorism.

Which, of course, were all absolute lies.

Iraq never had any weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was never a real threat to the United States. And if you want to talk about a breeding ground for terrorism, that’s what Iraq has turned into since our invasion. And I’m just talking about his lies about WMD’s in Iraq — I haven’t even touched on the fact that Bush promised us his tax cuts would balance our budget and bring us to economic prosperity.

Then let’s not forget about his little flight suit spectacle (paid for by taxpayer money, by the way) where he declared “Mission Accomplished” — which was another lie.

So what did Bush’s lie cost? Over 4,000 troops killed, tens of thousands more wounded (many of them for the rest of their lives) and countless dead Iraqi civilians. Then let’s not forget about the trillions his wars and unfunded tax cuts added to our national debt.

Now they want to act appalled and outraged because President Obama wasn’t completely honest about some Americans being able to keep their old insurance? And the worst thing that happens with that “lie” is that people are now forced to buy more comprehensive health coverage at (for some) a higher premium.

So, in the mind of many Republicans, lying about a war which resulted in over 4,000 brave American soldiers being sent to their deaths is acceptable, but neglecting to be completely detailed about the ability for some Americans to be allowed to keep their current health insurance—that is a horrific lie!

Maybe Republicans might want to take a step back and a deep breath. Because while Obama misleading Americans about their health insurance is inexcusable, at least he didn’t lie about the pretense for war that resulted in the death of over 4,000 Americans.

Which is exactly what the president they voted for twice did."



Some people need to take seats and be quiet.- poet

So if a previous administration lied, it is ok for the current one to do so as well?

The author is obviously a hack... for Obama blatantly lied.

 

[christiefan915]

Not much to say that changes anything....the DSM certainly contains the OPINION of Richard Dearlove that makes the claim ......hes certainly entitled to have that opinion.....he used the phrase "a shift in attitude"....I'm not quite sure what he means by that....
the fact that Bush was set on ousting Saddam in Iraq is nothing new.....that was US Policy from the Clinton administration.....and the constant whining of the Democrats concerning Saddam and WMD was still ongoing from the time Bush was elected....it was not a secret he agreed....

You put a lot stock in Dearlove's opinion about the intell being 'fixed' around the policy and I see for what it actually is...." one man's opinion "....

The DSM also contains other interesting tidbits.....see if you can connect the dots......

According to the DSM.....The minutes also outline potential risks of an invasion of Iraq:

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary."

THAT line alone confirms that those in the UK believed Saddams use of WMD was a definite possibility......in plain English,
they believed Saddam possessed WMD..........that begs the question "intelligence was being fixed around WHAT policy ?
Possibly the policy of ousting Saddam by military force ?....that is most likely what Dearlove was referring to as "policy"..........

So the UK believed just what that list of Democrats and the now Pres. Bush....Saddam had WMD.

Here's the money quote: "C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

IOW, "C" went to Washington and engaged in talks with the admin."C"reported on the talks to his superiors. He wasn't offering an opinion, he was relaying what went on in the meeting.And who's Dearlove? I don't see that name on this memo.

 

[maineman]

Damn right....and none of those statements say, as a matter of fact, that Mary had a little lamb...and a few other things aren't mentioned either....

As long as Poncho couldn't answer the guestions, here is the bottom line...

they DO say what they DO say....therefore, they are all statements of fact as seen by the speakers....maybe correct or maybe incorrect, but to each
speaker, facts ...

opinions, not statements of fact.

I can state, as a matter of fact, that the Red Sox won the world series in 2013. I can state, as a matter of OPINION, that the Red Sox will repeat in 2014. There really IS a difference between stating facts and stating opinions, no matter how deeply held those opinions are.

THERE IS NO DOUBT that the Red Sox won the world series this year. Statement of fact. true statement
THERE IS NO DOUBT that the Red Sox will win the world series NEXT year... Statement of fact by its composition and a false statement.
I HAVE NO DOUBT that the Red Sox will win the world series next year... Statement of opinion... and only history will tell if it was correct of not.

None of the democrats quoted stated as a matter of fact, that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's. Bush said he did as a statement of fact, NOT opinion. And it was a lie. That lie, when conflated with the repeated insinuations that Saddam's people had been in cahoots with OBL's people BEFORE 9/11, scared the shit out of Americans. We were misled by a liar.

 

[maineman]

Sometimes, I honestly don't think that Bravo even KNOWS the difference between a fact and opinion. What a sad life a gullible douche like that must lead.