Watada - The new face of librulism?

[CCTAU 3,345]

This guy is nothing more than a traitorous coward and the libs are coming out of the woodwork to support him. He is now the face of what anti-Bush is all about. Sick bastard. Check out some of the libs that are commenting. It's liek fact has never even entered into their world. Every mistruth and lie ever presented by the DNC is being quoted.

Conscientious Rejector?

First Lieutenant Ehren Watada still refuses Iraq deployment orders, calling the war illegal. A six-year prison term could result. Preliminary hearings are set for Thursday.

By the Hot Zone Team, Tue Jan 2, 6:38 PM ETEmail Story IM Story

First Lt. Ehren Watada, a 28-year-old Hawaii native, is the first commissioned officer in the U.S. to publicly refuse deployment to Iraq. He announced last June his decision not to deploy on the grounds the war is illegal.

Lt. Watada was based at Fort Lewis, Washington, with the Army's 3rd (Stryker) Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. He has remained on base, thus avoiding charges of desertion.

He does, however, face one count of "missing troop movement" and four counts of "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman." If convicted, he faces up to six years in prison.

First Lt. Ehren Watada

Photo courtesy:

Jeff Paterson/thankyoult.org

Watada's court martial is on February 5. A pre-trial hearing is set for January 4, with an added scope of controversy: the Army has ordered two freelance journalists, Sarah Olson and Dahr Jamail, to testify against Lt. Watada at the hearing. Both journalists are fighting the subpoenas.

Kevin Sites recently spoke with Lt. Watada about the reasoning behind his decision, the controversy the decision has caused and how he is dealing with the repercussions.

Lt. Watada spoke on the phone from his family's home in Hawaii. Click here to listen to the full audio version of the conversation. A transcript of the interview follows.

KEVIN SITES: Now, you joined the Army right after the US was invading Iraq and now you're refusing to go. Some critics might look at this as somewhat disingenuous. You've taken an oath, received training but now you won't fight. Can you explain your rationale behind this?

EHREN WATADA: Sure. I think that in March of 2003 when I joined up, I, like many Americans, believed the administration when they said the threat from Iraq was imminent — that there were weapons of mass destruction all throughout Iraq; that there were stockpiles of it; and because of Saddam Hussein's ties to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 terrorist acts, the threat was imminent and we needed to invade that country immediately in order to neutralize that threat.

Since then I think I, as many, many Americans are realizing, that those justifications were intentionally falsified in order to fit a policy established long before 9/11 of just toppling the Saddam Hussein regime and setting up an American presence in Iraq.

SITES: Tell me how those views evolved. How did you come to that conclusion?

WATADA: I think the facts are out there, they're not difficult to find, they just take a little bit of willingness and interest on behalf of anyone who is willing to seek out the truth and find the facts. All of it is in the mainstream media. But it is quickly buried and it is quickly hidden by other events that come and go. And all it takes is a little bit of logical reasoning. The Iraq Survey Group came out and said there were no weapons of mass destruction after 1991 and during 2003. The 9/11 Commission came out and said there were no ties with Iraq to 9/11 or al-Qaeda. The president himself came out and said that nobody in his administration ever suggested that there was a link.

And yet those ties to al-Qaeda and the weapons of mass destruction were strongly suggested. They said there was no doubt there were weapons of mass destruction all throughout 2002, 2003 and even 2004. So, they came out and they say this, and yet they say it was bad intelligence, not manipulated intelligence, that was the problem. And then you have veteran members of the CIA that come out and say, "No. It was manipulated intelligence. We told them there was no WMD. We told them there were no ties to al-Qaeda. And they said that that's not what they wanted to hear."

SITES: Do you think that you could have determined some of this information prior to joining the military — if a lot of it, as you say, was out there? There were questions going into the war whether WMD existed or not, and you seemingly accepted the administration's explanation for that. Why did you do that at that point?

WATADA: Certainly yeah, there was other information out there that I could have sought out. But I put my trust in our leaders in government.

SITES: Was there a turning point for you when you actually decided that this was definitely an illegal war?

WATADA: Certainly. I think that when we take an oath we, as soldiers and officers, swear to protect the constitution — with our lives as necessary — and those constitutional values and laws that make us free and make us a democracy. And when we have one branch of government that intentionally deceives another branch of government in order to authorize war, and intentionally deceives the people in order to gain that public support, that is a grave breach of our constitutional values, our laws, our checks and balances, and separation of power.

SITES: But Lieutenant, was there one specific incident that happened in Iraq or that the administration had said or done at a certain period that [made you say] "I have to examine this more closely"?

WATADA: No, I think that certainly as the war went on, and it was not going well, doubts came up in my mind, but at that point I still was willing to go. At one point I even volunteered to go to Iraq with any unit that was short of junior officers.

SITES: At what point was that?

WATADA: This was in September of 2005. But as soon as I found out, and as I began to read and research more and more that the administration had intentionally deceived the public and Congress over the reasons for going to Iraq, that's when I told myself "there's something wrong here."

"I saw the pain and agony etched upon the faces of all these families of lost soldiers. And I told myself that this needs to stop."

— Lt. Ehren Watada

SITES: Was there any kind of personal conviction as well, I mean in terms of exposure to returning soldiers or Marines — the kinds of wounds they suffered, the kinds of stories that they were bringing back with them — did that have any kind of influence or create any factors for you in coming to this decision?

WATADA: Sure, I felt, well, in a general sense I felt that when we put our trust in the government, when we put our lives in their hands, that is a huge responsibility. And we also say that "when we put our lives in your hands, we ask that you not abuse that trust; that you not take us to war over flimsy or false reasons; that you take us to war when it is absolutely necessary." Because we have so much to lose, you know — the soldiers, our lives, our limbs, our minds and our families — that the government and the people owe that to us.

SITES: Was there a fear that played into that? Did you see returning soldiers with lost limbs? Was there a concern for you that you might lose your life going to Iraq?

WATADA: No, that had nothing to do with the issue. The issue here is that we have thousands of soldiers returning. And what is their sacrifice for? For terrorism or establishing democracy or whatever the other reasons are. And I saw the pain and agony etched upon the faces of all these families of lost soldiers. And I told myself that this needs to stop. We cannot have people in power that are irresponsible and corrupt and that keep on going that way because they're not held accountable to the people.

SITES: You know on that note, Lieutenant, let me read you something from a speech that you gave in August to the Veterans for Peace. You had said at one point, "Many have said this about the World Trade Towers: never again. I agree, never again will we allow those who threaten our way of life to reign free. Be they terrorists or elected officials. The time to fight back is now, the time to stand up and be counted is today." Who were you speaking about when you said that?

WATADA: I was speaking about everybody. The American people. That we all have that duty, that obligation, that responsibility to do something when we see our government perpetrating a crime upon the world, or even upon us. And I think that the American people have lost that, that sense of duty. There is no self-interest in this war for the vast majority of the American people. And because of that the American soldiers have suffered.

There really is a detachment from this war, and many of the American people, because there is no draft, or for whatever reason, because taxes haven't been raised, they don't have anything personally to lose or gain with this war, and so they take little interest.

SITES: Do you think President Bush and his advisers are guilty of criminal conduct in the prosecution of this war?

WATADA: That's not something for me to determine. I think it's for the newly-elected congress to determine during the investigations that they should hold over this war, and pre-war intelligence.

SITES: But in some ways you have determined that. You're saying this is an illegal war, and an illegal act usually takes prosecution by someone with criminal intent. Is that correct?

WATADA: Right, and they have taken me to court with that, but they have refused — or it will be very unlikely that the prosecution in the military court will allow me to bring in evidence and witnesses to testify on my behalf that the war is illegal. So therefore it becomes the responsibility of Congress, since the military is refusing to do that. It becomes the responsibility of Congress to hold our elected leaders accountable.

SITES: Now this is the same Congress though that in a lot of ways voted for this war initially. Do you think that they're going to turn around and in some ways say that they were wrong? And hold hearings to determine exactly that, that they made a mistake as well? It seems like a long shot.

WATADA: Right, well I think some in Congress are willing to do that, and some aren't. And that's the struggle, and that's the fight that's going to occur over the next year.

Lt. Watada with his mother, Carolyn

Ho, and father, Robert Watada

Photo courtesy:

Jeff Paterson/thankyoult.org

SITES: Let me ask you why you decided to go to the press with this. In this particular case you're the first officer — there may have been other officers that have refused these orders, but you're the first one to really do this publicly. Why did you do that?

WATADA: Because I wanted to explain to the American people why I was taking the stand I was taking — that it wasn't for selfish reasons, it wasn't for cowardly reasons.

You know, I think the most important reason here is to raise awareness among the American people that hey — there's a war going on, and American soldiers are dying every day. Hundreds of Iraqis are dying every day. You need to take interest, and ask yourself where you stand, and what you're willing to do, to end this war, if you do believe that it's wrong — that it's illegal, and immoral. And I think I have accomplished that. Many, many people come up to me and say, "because of you, I have taken an active interest in what's going on over in Iraq."

And also, you know, give a little hope and inspiration back to a lot of people. For a long time I was really without hope, thinking that there was nothing I could do about something that I saw, that was so wrong, and so tragic. And I think a lot of people who have been trying to end this war felt the same way — that there was just nothing that they could do. And I think by taking my stand publicly, and stating my beliefs and standing on those beliefs, a lot of people have taken encouragement from that.

SITES: You've said that you had a responsibility to your own conscience in this particular situation. Did you also have a responsibility to your unit as well? I just want to read you a quote from Veterans of Foreign Wars communications director Jerry Newbury. He said "[Lt. Watada] has an obligation to fulfill, and it's not up to the individual officer to decide when he's going to deploy or not deploy. Some other officer will have to go in his place. He needs to think about that." Can you react to that quote?

WATADA: You know, what I'm doing is for the soldiers. I'm trying to end something that is criminal, something that should not have been started in the first place and something that is making America less safe — and that is the Iraq war. By just going there and being willing to participate, and doing my job, or whatever I'm told to do — which actually exacerbates the situation and makes it worse — I would not be serving the best interest of this country, nor the soldiers that I'm serving with. What I'm trying to do is end something, as I said, that's illegal, and immoral, so that all the soldiers can come home and this tragedy can come to an end.

It seems like people and critics make this distinction between an order to deploy and any other order, as if the order to deploy is just something that's beyond any other order. Orders have to be determined on whether they're legal or not. And if the order to deploy to a war that is unlawful, if that is given, then that order itself is unlawful.

SITES: How did your peers and your fellow officers react to your decision?

WATADA: I know that there have been some people within the military who won't agree with my stance, and there have been a lot of members of the Army of all ranks who have agreed with what I've done. And I see it almost every other day, where someone in uniform, or a dependent, approaches me in person, or through correspondence, and thanks me for what I have done, and either supports or respects my stand.

SITES: You've remained on base, and that's been a situation that can't be too comfortable for you. Can you fill us in on what that's been like there?

WATADA: I think that for the most part, people that I interact with closely — I have been moved, I'm no longer in the 3rd Striker Brigade, I'm over in 1st Corps — treat me professionally, politely, but keep their distance. I don't think anybody wants to get involved with the position that I've taken, either way. People approach me in private and give me their support.

SITES: Tell me about the repercussions you face in this court martial.

WATADA: Well I think with the charges that have been applied to me and referred over to a general court martial, I'm facing six years maximum confinement, dishonorable discharge from the army, and loss of all pay and allowances.

STES: Are you ready to deal with all those consequences with this decision?

WATADA: Sure, and I think that's the decision that I made almost a year ago, in January, when I submitted my original letter of resignation. I knew that possibly some of the things that I stated in that letter, including my own beliefs, that there were repercussions from that. Yet I felt it was a sacrifice, and it was a necessary sacrifice, to make. And I feel the same today.

I think that there are many supporters out there who feel that I should not be made an example of, that I'm speaking out for what a lot of Americans are increasingly becoming aware of: that the war is illegal and immoral and it must be stopped. And that the military should not make an example or punish me severely for that.

SITES: Do you think that you made a mistake in joining the military? Your mother and father support you in this decision, and your father during the Vietnam War refused to go to Vietnam as well, but instead joined the Peace Corps. He went to his draft board and said, "let me join the Peace Corps and serve in Peru," which is what he did. Do you think in hindsight that that might have been a better decision for you as well?

WATADA: You know I think that John Murtha came out a few months ago in an interview and he was asked if, with all his experience, in Korea, and Vietnam, volunteering for those wars -- he was asked if he would join the military today. And he said absolutely not. And I think that with the knowledge that I have now, I agree. I would not join the military because I would be forced into a position where I would be ordered to do something that is wrong. It is illegal and immoral. And I would be put into a situation as a soldier to be abused and misused by those in power.

STIES: In your speech in front of the Veterans for Peace you said "the oath we take as soldiers swears allegiance not to one man but to a document of principles and laws designed to protect the people." Can you expand upon that a little bit — what did you mean when you said that?

WATADA: The constitution was established, and our laws are established, to protect human rights, to protect equal rights and constitutional civil liberties. And I think we have people in power who say that those laws, or those principles, do not apply to them — that they are above the law and can do whatever it takes to manipulate or create laws that enable them to do whatever they please. And that is a danger in our country, and I think the war in Iraq is just one symptom of this agenda. And I think as soldiers, as American people, we need to recognize this, and we need to put a stop to it before it's too late.

LINK

[AURaptor 1,126]

EHREN WATADA: Sure. I think that in March of 2003 when I joined up, I, like many Americans, believed the administration when they said the threat from Iraq was imminent( the Gov't never made any such statement ) — that there were weapons of mass destruction all throughout Iraq; that there were stockpiles of it; ( everyone acknowledged that to be a fact, even the Clinton Administration ) and because of Saddam Hussein's ties to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 terrorist acts, the threat was imminent and we needed to invade that country immediately in order to neutralize that threat. ( There was always a question as to how Saddam - a known supporter of terrorism - and al Qaeda, who had just attacked us , were connected. It was and remains a valid point of inquiery )

Since then I think I, as many, many Americans are realizing, that those justifications were intentionally falsified ( how can those justifications be realized when there's no evidence suggesting they were falsified ? ) in order to fit a policy established long before 9/11 of just toppling the Saddam Hussein regime ( Like when Clinton made it official US policy to do just that ? ) and setting up an American presence in Iraq.

This is why stupididity should be painful. That, or we hold our 'free press' accountable for blatently lying to the public in order to distort the facts and misinform the public into turning against the President.

[Tiger Al 0]

EHREN WATADA: Sure. I think that in March of 2003 when I joined up, I, like many Americans, believed the administration when they said the threat from Iraq was imminent( the Gov't never made any such statement ) — that there were weapons of mass destruction all throughout Iraq; that there were stockpiles of it; ( everyone acknowledged that to be a fact, even the Clinton Administration ) and because of Saddam Hussein's ties to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 terrorist acts, the threat was imminent and we needed to invade that country immediately in order to neutralize that threat. ( There was always a question as to how Saddam - a known supporter of terrorism - and al Qaeda, who had just attacked us , were connected. It was and remains a valid point of inquiery )

Since then I think I, as many, many Americans are realizing, that those justifications were intentionally falsified ( how can those justifications be realized when there's no evidence suggesting they were falsified ? ) in order to fit a policy established long before 9/11 of just toppling the Saddam Hussein regime ( Like when Clinton made it official US policy to do just that ? ) and setting up an American presence in Iraq.

This is why stupididity should be painful. That, or we hold our 'free press' accountable for blatently lying to the public in order to distort the facts and misinform the public into turning against the President.

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."

• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."

• Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."

• President Bush, 3/19/03

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."

• President Bush, 3/16/03

"This is about imminent threat."

• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."

• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."

• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."

• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

"Well, of course he is.”

• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."

• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."

• President Bush, 1/3/03

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."

• President Bush, 11/23/02

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"

• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."

• President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."

• President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."

• President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."

• President Bush, 10/16/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."

• President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."

• President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."

• President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."

• President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."

• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."

• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."

• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02

[CCTAU 3,345]

Thank you. I saw no lies in your posts. Great quotes. WMDs were found and eventually they may have been used on the US and our friends. But alas, we'll never know. BECAUSE WE SHUT THEM DOWN. Too bad somebody did not shut Hitler down sooner. I guess we could have waited till somebody else died. But as long as it was not one of your family members, then it really wouldn't have happened, would it? I have no issues with taking Sadaam out. I do have issues with how we are handling it now. I vote more force. If you are gonna get called occupiers, then occupy damnit.

Not only that. But you citing al those quotes is the equivilent of condoning Watada's actions. I figure he'll be your next shining example of how a demoncrat should stand up to big bad Bush.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Tiger Al . Nice list of quotes ya got there. They sure do match up nicely with these quotes, don'tchya think ??

"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 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 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 Sens. 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 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 Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) 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 mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the 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.

[Tiger Al 0]

Tiger Al . Nice list of quotes ya got there. They sure do match up nicely with these quotes, don'tchya think ??

"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 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 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 Sens. 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 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 Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) 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 mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the 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.

And I thought you were the one who got so offended when things weren't presented in their proper context. Oh, wait...it IS you.

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

It seems that you have a case of "selective objection" to information being given out of context. You object when you're not the one taking it out of context. I've posted this before, but, I'll post it again; Here's a link to Snopes Urban Legends who covers this thoroughly. Nice try, though.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Tiger Al . Nice list of quotes ya got there. They sure do match up nicely with these quotes, don'tchya think ??

"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 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 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 Sens. 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 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 Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) 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 mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the 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.

And I thought you were the one who got so offended when things weren't presented in their proper context. Oh, wait...it IS you.

It seems that you have a case of "selective objection" to information being given out of context. You object when you're not the one taking it out of context. I've posted this before, but, I'll post it again; Here's a link to Snopes Urban Legends who covers this thoroughly. Nice try, though.

There's nothing what so ever I posted that is out of context. What on earth are you whining about ? From your snopes site..

All

of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in "degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."

The point remains, they all saw the threat w/ Saddam. Claiming that a few cruise missle strikes successfully did the job is patently absurd. There might have been 'SOME' impact , but to say it was a significant blow is hopeful thinking at best. And this was years before we ended up going into Iraq, per the UN Resolutions.

[Tiger Al 0]

Tiger Al . Nice list of quotes ya got there. They sure do match up nicely with these quotes, don'tchya think ??

"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 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 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 Sens. 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 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 Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) 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 mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the 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.

And I thought you were the one who got so offended when things weren't presented in their proper context. Oh, wait...it IS you.

It seems that you have a case of "selective objection" to information being given out of context. You object when you're not the one taking it out of context. I've posted this before, but, I'll post it again; Here's a link to Snopes Urban Legends who covers this thoroughly. Nice try, though.

There's nothing what so ever I posted that is out of context. What on earth are you whining about ? From your snopes site..

All

of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in "degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."

The point remains, they all saw the threat w/ Saddam. Claiming that a few cruise missle strikes successfully did the job is patently absurd. There might have been 'SOME' impact , but to say it was a significant blow is hopeful thinking at best. And this was years before we ended up going into Iraq, per the UN Resolutions.

The only point that remains is your misguided belief that quotes from 1998-2002 taken out of context are relevant or valid. All of those statements were made before UNMOVIC searched Iraq based on our intelligence and found that WMD were not where we thought they were. They had been destroyed by UNSCOM. We knew this before we attacked.

[AURaptor 1,126]

The only point that remains is your misguided belief that quotes from 1998-2002 taken out of context are relevant or valid. All of those statements were made before UNMOVIC searched Iraq based on our intelligence and found that WMD were not where we thought they were. They had been destroyed by UNSCOM. We knew this before we attacked.

None of those quotes were out of context. That we DID destroy 'some' of Iraqs WMD only shows that Iraq wasn't complying with UN resolutions. How could we be sure if they weren't lying to us now, since they had already lied to us , the UN, the world already ? Seems your trust in Saddam exceeds the trust in your own President.

When did UNMOVIC 'search' Iraq and not find any WMD ?

[Tiger Al 0]

That we DID destroy 'some' of Iraqs WMD only shows that Iraq wasn't complying with UN resolutions.

WE didn't destroy any WMD. UNSCOM did, as was their job.

How could we be sure if they weren't lying to us now

By letting UNMOVIC inspectors finish their job.

When did UNMOVIC 'search' Iraq and not find any WMD ?

12/2002-3/2003.

[AURaptor 1,126]

That we DID destroy 'some' of Iraqs WMD only shows that Iraq wasn't complying with UN resolutions.

WE didn't destroy any WMD. UNSCOM did, as was their job.

Well, I meant 'we' in the sense of the good guys. And it was the duty of the Iraqi Gov't to either come clean w/ ALL WMD materials it had, or show what they did with them. It wasn't the job of the U.N. to play a nation wide shell game w/ Saddam, but that's what too many folks believe they were sent there for.

How could we be sure if they weren't lying to us now

By letting UNMOVIC inspectors finish their job.

UNMOVIC inspectors weren't ever going to 'finish their job', because Iraq was NEVER going to fully comply.

When did UNMOVIC 'search' Iraq and not find any WMD ?

12/2002-3/2003.

So, they didn't find any. Does that mean Iraq was clear and free of WMD ? Obviously not. And EVERYONE was making statements from '98 to '02, which is when we , both Congress and the President, decided to go into Iraq.

[Tiger Al 0]

Well, I meant 'we' in the sense of the good guys. And it was the duty of the Iraqi Gov't to either come clean w/ ALL WMD materials it had, or show what they did with them. It wasn't the job of the U.N. to play a nation wide shell game w/ Saddam, but that's what too many folks believe they were sent there for.

UNSCOM's mission was more complicated than your oversimplification of 'come clean or show what they did.' Read UNSCOM's mandate:

To carry out immediate on-site inspections of Iraq's biological, chemical and missile capabilities; to take possession for destruction, removal or rendering harmless of all chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related sub-systems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities; to supervise the destruction by Iraq of all its ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 km and related major parts, and repair and production facilities; and to monitor and verify Iraq's compliance with its undertaking not to use, develop, construct or acquire any of the items specified above. The Commission is also requested to assist the Director General of IAEA, which, under resolution 687, has been requested to undertake activities similar to those of the Commission but specifically in the nuclear field. Further, the Commission is entrusted to designate for inspection any additional site necessary for ensuring the fulfillment of the mandates given to the Commission and IAEA.

UNMOVIC inspectors weren't ever going to 'finish their job', because Iraq was NEVER going to fully comply.

That's something we can only speculate on now. However, between 12/02 and 3/03, Iraq was complying and UNMOVIC was going to all of the sites our intel claimed would have WMD or the facilities to produce WMD. Their mission was aborted due to our pending invasion.

So, they didn't find any. Does that mean Iraq was clear and free of WMD ? Obviously not. And EVERYONE was making statements from '98 to '02, which is when we , both Congress and the President, decided to go into Iraq.

It means that UNMOVIC had followed our best intelligence, intel that was based on 5+ year old assumption and speculation as well as less than reliable Iraqi sources like Ahmed Chalabi, and did not find our intel to be accurate. It also means, as Hans Blix stated, that time to verify was needed. You seem to lose your perspective when you give so much weight to the statements that EVERYONE was making. That was all based on what we knew before Clinton withdrew UNSCOM inspectors in 98 for Operation Desert Fox. Many suspected WMD sites and conventional military infrastructure were destroyed then. This required verification which was being done by UNMOVIC from Dec-Mar until they were evacuated.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Tiger Al, you failed to take into consideration that the U.N. mandated that Iraq comply fully, or face dire consequences. Sure, UNSCOM had it's own job description to carry out, but it was all dependent on Iraq complying w/ International Law. Iraq failed to do that for over 10 yrs, and you still want to say we can 'speculate' on this or that. Sorry, but the time for pointless speculation had come and gone by the time W came into office. Iraq wasn't complying and wasn't going to. That's a fact.

[CCTAU 3,345]

Tiger Al, you failed to take into consideration that the U.N. mandated that Iraq comply fully, or face dire consequences. Sure, UNSCOM had it's own job description to carry out, but it was all dependent on Iraq complying w/ International Law. Iraq failed to do that for over 10 yrs, and you still want to say we can 'speculate' on this or that. Sorry, but the time for pointless speculation had come and gone by the time W came into office. Iraq wasn't complying and wasn't going to. That's a fact.

It was only taking weeks to get access to those sites. Sites that should have only taken half a day to inspect. At that rate, they could keep shifting any WMDs that they had back and forth between the already inspected sites. If they had used them on Americans or any of our allies, people like TA would have clamored for Bush's head anyway. At least this way, we have no fear of any WMDs coming from Iraq. Mission accomplished in that regard. All WMDs gone from Iraq. UN resolutions upheld by the ONLY member that does anything.

[Tiger Al 0]

Tiger Al, you failed to take into consideration that the U.N. mandated that Iraq comply fully, or face dire consequences. Sure, UNSCOM had it's own job description to carry out, but it was all dependent on Iraq complying w/ International Law. Iraq failed to do that for over 10 yrs, and you still want to say we can 'speculate' on this or that. Sorry, but the time for pointless speculation had come and gone by the time W came into office. Iraq wasn't complying and wasn't going to. That's a fact.

It was only taking weeks to get access to those sites. Sites that should have only taken half a day to inspect. At that rate, they could keep shifting any WMDs that they had back and forth between the already inspected sites. If they had used them on Americans or any of our allies, people like TA would have clamored for Bush's head anyway. At least this way, we have no fear of any WMDs coming from Iraq. Mission accomplished in that regard. All WMDs gone from Iraq. UN resolutions upheld by the ONLY member that does anything.

Would this 'shifting' to have happened, somebody's head SHOULD'VE been clamored for. The US didn't claim that Iraq had a few sugar packets worth of chemical agents that someone could've 'spirited away' between sites or into Syria, as some like to imagine. Colin Powell claimed that Iraq could've had as much as 25,000 litres of anthrax, 550 artillary shells of mustard gas, 30,000 empty munitions and a potential stockpile of 500 TONS of chemical agents, 6500 bombs with chemicals on the order of 1000 TONS, 4 TONS of VX nerve agent, etc. We were told we 'knew' where the weapons were. You would have people believe that we knew where all of this stuff was and then just packed up surveillence and moved on, leaving all of these dangerous materials unwatched, unmonitored and/or unattended. This is a preposterous assertion.

[Tiger Al 0]

Tiger Al, you failed to take into consideration that the U.N. mandated that Iraq comply fully, or face dire consequences. Sure, UNSCOM had it's own job description to carry out, but it was all dependent on Iraq complying w/ International Law. Iraq failed to do that for over 10 yrs, and you still want to say we can 'speculate' on this or that. Sorry, but the time for pointless speculation had come and gone by the time W came into office. Iraq wasn't complying and wasn't going to. That's a fact.

I think Bush doing what he said he'd do would've been better, which was that as long as Iraq complied with UNMOVIC the US would not invade. 3000+ Americans have died and tens of thousands more received life-altering injuries to arrive at the same end that could've been reached through UNMOVIC and that is to verify that Iraq had disarmed.

[AURaptor 1,126]

3000+ Americans have died and tens of thousands more received life-altering injuries to arrive at the same end that could've been reached through UNMOVIC and that is to verify that Iraq had disarmed.

The year's young still, but that might be the most naive quote of the year. Congrats.

[Tiger Al 0]

3000+ Americans have died and tens of thousands more received life-altering injuries to arrive at the same end that could've been reached through UNMOVIC and that is to verify that Iraq had disarmed.

The year's young still, but that might be the most naive quote of the year. Congrats.

Not naive at all. If Saddam cooperated and UNMOVIC was able to give Iraq a go on disarmament, problem solved. If he failed to cooperate or WMD was found, then we had troops on the border ready to roll at a moments notice.

[AURaptor 1,126]

If Saddam cooperated ....

Well there you go then. There in lies the heart of the argument. Saddam wasn't cooperating , as evidenced by the U.N. Food for Oil scam. Saddam wasn't cooperating and he was never GOING to cooperate.

[Tiger Al 0]

If Saddam cooperated ....

Well there you go then. There in lies the heart of the argument. Saddam wasn't cooperating , as evidenced by the U.N. Food for Oil scam. Saddam wasn't cooperating and he was never GOING to cooperate.

Oil for Food had nothing to do with our invasion. That's a stretch, even for you.

[AURaptor 1,126]

If Saddam cooperated ....

Well there you go then. There in lies the heart of the argument. Saddam wasn't cooperating , as evidenced by the U.N. Food for Oil scam. Saddam wasn't cooperating and he was never GOING to cooperate.

Oil for Food had nothing to do with our invasion. That's a stretch, even for you.

It's not a stretch in the least. Its a damning example of how Saddam thumbed his nose at the will of the international community.

[Tiger Al 0]

If Saddam cooperated ....

Well there you go then. There in lies the heart of the argument. Saddam wasn't cooperating , as evidenced by the U.N. Food for Oil scam. Saddam wasn't cooperating and he was never GOING to cooperate.

Oil for Food had nothing to do with our invasion. That's a stretch, even for you.

It's not a stretch in the least. Its a damning example of how Saddam thumbed his nose at the will of the international community.

Which still had nothing to do with the reasons we were given as a country, or what Congress voted on, and, strains credulity to even consider it. This is a classic 'bob-and-weave' act.

[AURaptor 1,126]

If Saddam cooperated ....

Well there you go then. There in lies the heart of the argument. Saddam wasn't cooperating , as evidenced by the U.N. Food for Oil scam. Saddam wasn't cooperating and he was never GOING to cooperate.

Oil for Food had nothing to do with our invasion. That's a stretch, even for you.

It's not a stretch in the least. Its a damning example of how Saddam thumbed his nose at the will of the international community.

Which still had nothing to do with the reasons we were given as a country, or what Congress voted on, and, strains credulity to even consider it. This is a classic 'bob-and-weave' act.

I never claimed it was a reason for us going to war. But it's a clear indictment , in addition to the 17 UN Resolutions, that Saddam was never going to comply. He didn't comply in 10, 11 or even 12 years after the Gulf War. He simply wasn't going to ,ever. His time had run out.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

I truly believe all you chickenhawks should enlist TODAY. AURaptor, CCTAU, Tigermike and rest of you chickenhawks, go enlist today and hope you see what combat is like.

White House Postponing Loss of Iraq, Biden Says

By Glenn Kessler

Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, January 5, 2007; Page A06

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said yesterday that he believes top officials in the Bush administration have privately concluded they have lost Iraq and are simply trying to postpone disaster so the next president will "be the guy landing helicopters inside the Green Zone, taking people off the roof," in a chaotic withdrawal reminiscent of Vietnam.

"I have reached the tentative conclusion that a significant portion of this administration, maybe even including the vice president, believes Iraq is lost," Biden said. "They have no answer to deal with how badly they have screwed it up. I am not being facetious now. Therefore, the best thing to do is keep it from totally collapsing on your watch and hand it off to the next guy -- literally, not figuratively."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7010401525.html

[Tigermike 3,053]

I truly believe all you chickenhawks should enlist TODAY. AURaptor, CCTAU, Tigermike and rest of you chickenhawks, go enlist today and hope you see what combat is like.

I truly believe you should leave today for the nearest socialist country.