Ex-UN inspector has harsh words for Bush

Iraq Forum

You don't say!

I know Curley, I thought I was in '03 all over again...

Aren't you 2 even interested in whether you've been lied to or not? Blix just collaberated exactly what others including myself has said about this administration. It was not willing to hear any other evidence opposing their views and brushed them aside.

Now after over 500 American troop lives, you can sit there with your smug attitudes?

None of you are remotely close to being willing to understand the truth. Instead this is proof of your continued blind bias and arrogant support of non existant claims against Saddam.

You're simply not interested in truth period.

If Bush would have known he wouldn't find any WMD's and that the UN wouldn't back the invasion, I would have voted for the war in Iraq to proceed anyway, and I'm not the only one. There's a larger picture here than just Iraq, but Iraq is a front for global terror so it had to be dealt with.

The fact is, I'm not detatched from reality, or blindly fallowing Bush. Before you can claim to know the truth so intimately, you must first accept the possibility that I am as resourceful, intelligent and open-minded as you are. Since you are unable to even consider that a possibility, you're only fortifying my speculation that the only truth you know is the one hugging your political agenda.

It's as if you're saying "Beleive what I tell you, or you're in denial" -- which is, for lack of a better word; silly.

Sayzak, I don't believe you're silly at all. Open minded? Well that's another story. If you are you haven't displayed that in these forums.

However, maybe it's just that we're arguing two different positions housed in the same positions. I don't agree with the war, you do. However you agree with it because of other reasons than Bush asserted so it would seem. Some of your position sounds like some of Bush's however.

I do not see where Saddam & Iraq was a fight on the "front for global terror" as you put it Sayzak. If that was the case, then terror globally would have been disrupted. This certainly is not the case.

This statement here I find troubling however.

"If Bush would have known he wouldn't find any WMD's and that the UN wouldn't back the invasion, I would have voted for the war in Iraq to proceed anyway, and I'm not the only one. "

See, it would bother me that Bush would stand before America, our leader, and lie to us for whatever agenda that was. This is my biggest problem with Iraq.

As far as you being intelligent, I never thought otherwise. I just thought your faith was well misplaced, there's a difference. What I thought you and think others are in denial of is this.

The case for war made by Bush is shady at best. Despite his lack of evidence of his assertions we still have those that subscribe to his telling complete truth, then afterward, his telling the truth based on the info he received.

So if I think you're silly Sayzak, it's not for your position on Iraq. But really, your position you still take lacks depth. For you maybe, but for America not so. We cannot get on that moral soap box what so ever.

I would however like to know why you think Iraq was a war against global terror.

Nothing ever changes here I see However I compelled to respond

I only judge you by your own words. Somehow you seem to believe words are irrelevant, hence your support for this administration.

quote:

We're arguing two different positions from within the same position, and my reason for my position is different from Bush's, but my position sounds like Bush's position? Late night last night or what? This sentance could use reformatting I think.

Indeed this does need reformatting. I mean to say you and I are arguing two different positions house in the same position of those that disagree. Did I get that right? If not it’s my fault and I’ll try to clarify it.

quote:

Was saddam an evil and brutal dictator? yes Did he harbor terrorists? yes Was he seeking WMD's? yes From this we can conclude that Saddam, if not the most important, was at least significant in the war on terror. To turn over a nation and turn it into a Democracy with 500 times more potential than it had before we went in, is important in the war on terror. It's not supposed to happen over night. No one (except maybe you) thought the world would be in peace by now. I'm sorry you're dissapointed, but the world doesn't work like that. Only in hollywood can you get instant gratification.

So according to you we should depose every nation that has leaders that are

1. Brutal
2. Harbor terrorist
3. Seek WMD

And you say I subscribe to too much Hollywood? Don’t tell me about why we should depose this guy on these ground when we made him who he was. Secondly there are many many more countries around the globe that have the same problem. In fact we see them popping up now don’t we because we were so obsessed with Saddam and Iraq, we couldn’t see their neighbor (Iran) doing what we accused Saddam of.

Get of your moral soap box. The US cannot stand up there.

quote:

Hey, I have an idea. What did he lie about, and can you prove it? (Besides of course unfounded claim that niger sold iraq uranium).

No offense I hope, but this is why I call you closed minded Sayzak. Despite your little disclaimer there is much more wrong with Bush’s assertions. He made several of them. I know their a little foggy to you right now, but maybe it’s because they don’t fit your position.

However one big one was the claim of WMD. You can except Bush’s word that he thought they were there and dismiss the UN inspectors words that said Bush embellished to say the least information because he didn’t want to accept anything contrary to his position.

And after we look at what’s transpired, I find if hard press to explain your position of “explain how Bush lied”.

quote:

Well I have just as many reasons to think you're in denial. Democrats are making the president jump through hoops while he does his job, and that's more disturbing than falty intelligence IMO. Especially considering that alot of the intelligence Bush laid his eyes on was on Clinton's desk for 8 years.

So that’s just it, what was new if it’s been around for 8 yrs? You think because Bush is President we should do everything he says and he’s not accountable? This is how our government was set up so no one maniac can go off half cocked and cause more harm than good. However sometimes one get away. Faulty intelligence huh? And you honestly believe Bush saw nothing exculpatory concerning Iraq?

Like I said, closed minded here Sayzak. Unless Blix had a discussion with me, he just made the same assertion. Bush denied anything that didn’t support invasion and the results support this claim.

quote:

How does it lack depth? You seem to know the truth better than anyone here, surely you can explain to me how my position lacks depth.

No I don’t know the truth better than anyone here. I’m just one of the few here that see the truth for what it is. There’s a difference. We’re all looking at the same thing.

Your position lacks depth because Bush made major claims that have not been found truthful. This at best deserves scrutiny and at worse…well, I don’t want to say. Since you see him make his uranium statements and claims about WMD and nothing come to pass, then your insistence that he’s telling the truth until proven other wise is not base on logic.

quote:

Why don't you think the war in Iraq has anything to do with the war on terror?

First let me say that I think the multiple choices you gave me is c)

Just kidding, but here's why I don't believe we're fighting terrorism there.


Bush out of the blue made significant accusations, serious ones at Saddam. He claimed Saddam had everything from the Brinx Armored Car to Nuclear weapons. His claims made against Saddam are dubious at best, with most of it being found not true.

The Halliburton appointment, the guarding of the Ministry of Oil, the building of a US embassy and the establishment of US military bases there all lead me to believe that this is more than fighting terror, and that’s just for starters.

Now we have Bush, after practically telling the UN to kiss it, saying the info he received was faulty. He then denies an investigation, then ok’s the investigation, but only after knowing the results wouldn’t be out until AFTER elections.

Look this is just a few of the things that smell about this. When something smells this bad, it’s usually because it’s spoiled. There is way too many questions for all this to be a coincidence or politically motivated. Of course we have those that will jump on the wagon, but that doesn’t absolve him of his words the world and America heard.

Weighing him in the balance, I find him wanting. This couple with the fact that Al Qaeda was affected very little by this invasion gives me cause to doubt his claims.

Hey oneofpeace, please check your pm if you don't mind.

http://www.rainbowmarketing.com/b52nd/images/nyquist/12152003/pic08909.jpg

I wonder what else is buried in that desert. That's a ... big desert. Perhaps the informant leading to these couple dozen buried jets was Mr. Blix... ?

Saddam was a brutal dictator. His fall from power is a good thing.



he had nothing to do with al Qaeda though. That's stupid. Osama bin Laden was critical of Iraq for its secularization.


now, don't kid yourself. Al Qaeda is probably not very desperate. They know what they're up against. They probably don't even expect to succeed. All they want to do is cause as much harm to the Western World as they possibly can.

I remember when 9/11 first happened there was propaganda out that said bin Laden tried to divide our nation, but only succeeded in uniting it. That's stupid. They were trying to damage our economy, and they succeeded.


It's strategically stupid to assume the enemy is weak, stupid, and scared. We will never win if we do that.

Well defined and logical argument Dekka. I agree 100%

Yep, really big. I guess Saddam must have some pretty good equipment to hide those weapons without a trace like that. Especially since he had them all out waiting to drop them on the first American troops in sight.

But wait, doesn't this mean that Bush never had this "clear and convincing" evidence he originally said he had?

oneofpeace ----> <---- violin (pretend)