Gitmo and GoDaddy: Changing one man's mind on torture.

[DrewKaree]

Drew --

Only one of your links work for me.

Copy and paste them then.  For whatever reason, they aren't working properly with the board.  Thanks for letting me know.  I'll simply post the URL's then.

Your other quotes show Bush discussing weapons more than any other reason for war. So without reading between the lines (which you say is bad), the reasonable conclusion is that illegal weapons were Bush's main reason to go to war.

It's as I thought.  I'm fine with you not reading what's said.  I'll continue to show it to you, though.  I'll even highlight items that should make things apparent.  You keep on skipping over it if it helps.  I may even draft a resolution you agree to and violate millions of times.  You'll even be able to go MORE than 12 years ignoring them.  There's even a few more months to go when the larger case starts to become apparent - that Sadaam's going to be continuing the same way, and a few other reasons why removing him will become the best thing that ever happened to Iraq. 

Trouble with Drew is that he gets his information from propaganda sites. Propaganda is where the facts get raped by opinons and by taking them out of context.

Are you relying on Dexter's "unbiased media" as well?  I know it's hard to follow what's been going on, but JCL used the exact same site I'm pulling from.  Which one of us is lying when we draw from the site "where facts get raped by opinions and by taking them out of context"?  I know it pains you to read my thoughtful essays, but you'll have to do a LITTLE reading of what's actually going on.  We both pulled from Bush's ACTUAL WORDS QUOTED FROM SPEECH AFTER SPEECH AFTER SPEECH!  Labeling our site we both are debating from is to make BOTH sides invalid, unless somehow *gasp!* you were wrong!

Try to follow what's going on Patrick.  Put the bong down and look at what's being said instead of giving the knee-jerk "his stuff is wrong because he's on the other side and I don't believe him".  You just made yourself look like a maroon claiming JCL's site is "propaganda"....but of course you didn't realize that, I'm guessing.  I'd edit if I were you, your ignorance is showing. 

[JCL]

Wow. You really seem to miss the point. Inspectors were looking for WMDs.

So any justification based on inspections is based on WMDs. And Violating the resolutions is 90% about weapons with some minor other reasons. So every time you bring up resolutions and inspections, you are still showing that Bush was mostly using WMDs as justification for war.

[DrewKaree]

Drew --

Only one of your links work for me. And that document mentions the word Iraq *once* and does so in the context of ... WMDs.

Don't know which one it was that worked for you, but the comprehension part seems to be what's not working.  I'll try to use your simplified "fact chart" for you.

Paragraph by paragraph of your my quotes:

WMDs comply with U.N. resolutions - you're a threat to peace if you don't
freedomNo credibility if you fail to act.  We will.  Follow our lead
WMDsNo negotiations.  12 years of negotiations haven't worked.  Sadaam can't be trusted.  Failure to comply with U.N. resolutions has resulted in inaction against him.


Terrorism small groups of people can cause the U.S. big problems - death even!
TerrorismAmerica will hold accountable nations (like Iraq) that work with terrorist groups
WMDsWe can't defend America hoping for the best (such as "Iraq isn't lying to us")  In order to assure peace and security, we must ACT (such as removing a lying dictator who won't comply with a dozen years of resolutions)

WMDs Look closely.  The words "weapons" or "weapon", "mass", or "destruction" DON'T EVEN APPEAR IN THE PARAGRAPH!  HOW CAN YOU SAY YOU ARE NOT FIXATED ON WMD'S?!?!?!?
 
And it reads about failure to comply with resolutions. Actions identical in the past (deception, delaying, denying) Bush is convinced the U.N. can't be so ignorant as to let this continue to go on 

Threat to Peace (how so without weapons?)defying the U.N. resolutions is how.  Making it seem as if dealing with Sadaam in direct contradiction of the sanctions and resolutions is "just fiiiiiiiiine, man!"  BTW, kudos.  First one you've gotten right, although it comes after something that showed your fervor for WMD's
Repression/Terrorism/WMDsspeculation about other nations and their refusal to finally take a stand on the resolutions they passed.  continued failure to comply with the resolutions.  Unreasonable dude, is Sadaam.  Sadaam's demonstrated he's willing to threaten peace (remember the above question of yours?)  And FINALLY....WMD's - development.  Or let me guess, you believe him that he wasn't?

I don't have the time to go through each of your "assessments" of what's going on.  The fact that you can claim something is purely WMD's when there isn't even a mention of ANY combination of the words or phrases such as you did in above should make you realize you're only looking for WMD's, could care less about anything else BUT WMD's, and aren't reading any of Bush's words with anything CLOSE to concern with what was actually said.

As I said, I'll continue to give the information, and there's a wealth of it, for those who don't have a hard-on for WMD's and can realize there was nothing the news was talking about (framing the issue to sell bad news, what reporting is generally about) BUT WMD's, and can honestly take the time to read what's put down and debate the issues (telling two opposing sides pulling their info from the same places that only ONE side is getting its info from that place because it's raping the facts via opinion comes to mind)

[DrewKaree]

Drew --

You still didn't show me the speeches where weapons weren't the main thrust of the argument for war.

In spades, I am. 

What exact speech are you refering to, Drew?

The pre-war speeches focused primarilly on WMDs.

Indeed, they did not, and I've only gotten through September '02. 

"If Saddam Hussein fails to comply ..."

Comply with what exactly? Ending his weapon programs? He did it. Allowing UN inspectors in? He did it. Cooperating with UN inspectors? He did it.

That was from Bill Clinton.  Failure to comply with the U.N. resolutions.  If you honestly believe he was allowing U.N. inspectors free and unfettered access to do their inspections, both then, and leading up to the war, you're delusional.  Cooperation?  I've just given a small snippet (there's more!) of the tactics Sadaam has used, and you still can't see?  You're STILL going to go with "he's complying with the resolution"?

Wow. You really seem to miss the point. Inspectors were looking for WMDs.

Sadly, no.  The point YOU need to fixate on for whatever reason as the justification for war was WMD's.  If someone's not obtuse, the reason, the justification for war is Sadaam's refusal to comply with the U.N. resolution, and finally having to face the consequences for failing to allow the world free and unfettered access to ascertain exactly what was going on in Iraq.  Based on reports by those inspection teams of things Sadaam was trying to HIDE, we had no reason to believe anything Sadaam had to say, and therefore required compliance with the resolution.  The reason for going to war is that Bush stated what had to be done, Sadaam thought he was dealing with Clinton or Bush's dad again, and figured since he was able to so freely violate the sanctions, abuse the program designed to help the Iraqi people, and had done so with impunity, he was dealing with someone who would fold like the rest, instead of someone who is a man of his convictions, a man whose word (when he says he's going to do something, he damn sure is going to do something) means something.  Thus far, Bush is giving him a chance to avoid war by complying with the resolutions.  We'll get to the other things Bush will lay out shortly.   There's only 5 months to war.  Don't worry, this will "rush" on by

[JCL]

So you really think inspections were a seperate issue from WMDs? What do you think the inspectors were looking for?

And you really thiink that violations of resolutions in 1998 are grounds for invasion in 2003 when Iraq was in compliance in 2003? Wow. Inspectors in 2003 were saying that Iraq was cooperating and they couldn't find WMDs. They were saying that Iraq wasn't hiding things in 2003. And after many thousands of deaths and hundreds of billions of dollars later, Bush agrees.

You can't possibly be stupid enough to belive that inspections weren't related to WMDs and you can't possibly not know that the resolutions Bush discusses are almost all WMD related.

You win. You have demonstrated that you will post clear falsehoods in response to evidence and facts. Good going.

[DrewKaree]

And you really thiink that violations of resolutions in 1998 are grounds for invasion in 2003 when Iraq was in compliance in 2003?

I'm guessing you're not down with facts.  Have you heard of Resolution 1441?  Adopted at Security Council meeting 4644, November 8, 2002?  Resolution 1382 from November 29, 2001?  Resolution 1284 from December 17, 1999?

No, I'm not talking about violating resolutions from 1998.  Only.  I'm talking about repeated violations of resolutions over YEARS, including, and up to, months prior to war.  I'm surprised you think this is about something that's simply 5 years old at that point.  It's almost as if you think Sadaam has been a model boy scout since 1998.  I simply stopped giving you demonstrations of violations of resolution after resolution at 1998. 

Wow. Inspectors in 2003 were saying that Iraq was cooperating and they couldn't find WMDs. They were saying that Iraq wasn't hiding things in 2003.

I've got to inform you you're wrong again.  Cooperation means something different to you than it does me, clearly.  From May of '03, we get to see what "cooperation" looked like, Iraqi-style.

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_07-08/inspectors_julaug03.asp

 The Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein continually stated that it had destroyed all of its prohibited weapons. However, Iraq

[patrickl]

Oh, and Patrick, in case you missed that little point right there, "with resolution 1441...Iraq was declared in material breach", certainly would seem to imply that those voting for the resolution would believe Iraq had WMD's.

Come on man that material breach thing was completely bogus. They told Iraq to prove  (in a short time) that they destroyed all WMD related materials and when they couldn't prove that, Bush declared that proved that he had them. Try that in a US court and see how far you get.

Actually that was the point they made in the propaganda speeches. In the political arena they just tried to get Iraq on a technicality (material breach).

The fact still is that Iraq was complying more than ever before. The inspectors where looking around unhindered and they couldn't find the WMD.

But again we are digressing. Not complying to some minor UN resolutions is no reason to go to war. In fact the UN did not agree to this invasion. So maybe try another angle again to divert us away from the real issue?

Seriously Drew, I appreciate that you are trying to actullly find facts now, but since you obviously missed the real story when it happened it seems you are missing the bigger picture (while you are now trying to piece it all together).

[DrewKaree]

Come on man that material breach thing was completely bogus.

Case closed then.  It's a wrap.  Patrick says the group of people we were supposed to get "permission" from before we went to war wrote some thing that's "completely bogus".  Nice argument

They told Iraq to prove  (in a short time) that they destroyed all WMD related materials and when they couldn't prove that, Bush declared that proved that he had them. Try that in a US court and see how far you get.

I'm not sure if 12 years qualifes as a short time, and I don't know if the statute of limitations would apply

Actually that was the point they made in the propaganda speeches. In the political arena they just tried to get Iraq on a technicality (material breach).

The fact still is that Iraq was complying more than ever before. The inspectors where looking around unhindered and they couldn't find the WMD.

If by "more than ever before" you mean "less than what's wanted" I'd say you were correct.  You might want to look at links that might help you before you prattle on.  Inspectors requested interviews with 51 inspectors, got THIRTEEN that Iraq allowed.  You probably ALSO missed the part where their U.N.-required declarations "NEVER provided an adequate accounting of Baghdad

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Just so we are clear, Drew....you are saying that you believe the citizens of the United States of America, agreed with this administrations desire to go to war with Iraq....because they were told that we needed to stop Saddam because he repeatedly violated U.N. resolutions?

That's it. You believe that? That was enough of a threat? And if it *was* enough of a threat, why were we told it was enough of a threat?

[patrickl]

Sorry Drew, I have offered plenty of facts. Just no superfluous links.

Let me just point out one thing. Bush tried to get an OK for his much wanted war (and yes you need that if you intend to undertake a war, beacuse if not you are just as much an agressor) and he did not get it. It's pretty simple.

[JCL]

Drew --

Out of context quoting and quotes from months before the war don't convince me that Iraq wasn't cooperating when the US invaded. Iraq was actively cooperating by the time of the invasion.

Who says so? Hans Blix:

When on January 27, I denounced Iraq in the Security Council of the UN for not cooperating in an immediate, complete and unconditional way to fulfill the terms of resolution 1441, the American Government, including the hawks, applauded me. However, it was a great paradox, because from then on, the Government of Iraq began to cooperate actively. And then the Americans began to criticize me.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0409lostpatience.htm

So your talk of lack of cooperation is clearly called untrue by the guy who lead inspections.

Legally, the only group that can determine that Iraq is in breach of UN resolutions is the UN. And clearly the UN didn't make that determination by the end of March.  And the person who was closest to the situation said Iraq was cooperating actively.

But Bush knew better than inspectors that weapons existed, and knew better than the UN that Iraq was violating international law. Judge, jury and executioner all in one.

And thanks once again for providing more and more evidence that it Bush's (and now your) primary justification for war was WMD. Doesn't all this talk of resolutions (about WMDs) and Inspections (for WMDs) start to show you that Bush push WMDs as justification more than any other reason?

Of course, we all now know these weapons didn't exist when Bush invaded.

Here's some hypothetical questions for you:

We now know (even Bush agrees) that Iraq had disarmed before the invasion. If you had known that before the war, would you have supported going to war anyways?

And without these weapons, and without a UN resolution authorizing force, would the war have been legal?

[Dexter]

Its only when you look at the Iraq invasion from the PNACer perspective and refer to the graphic I posted earlier in this thread that operation iraqi freedom (tm) makes sense, i.e. don't take 'minor' inconveniences like no WMDs and no 45 minute strike capabilities into account.

It was never about any of those things, or 9/11. The invasion of Iraq was planned before the post 9/11 war on terror began.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

To me, these few quotes from Paul Wolfowitz pretty much sum up the dishonesty inherent in this administration.

"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason..." [link]

...

[BOWDEN]

[DrewKaree]

I'll be back with you guys shortly.  Brother-in-law is in from out of town unexpectedly for the week and I can only fit short inane replies in here and there.  The longer ones will have to wait.

[Dartful Dodger]

If you guys are so against torture, why do you keep replying to this thread?