“Thou shalt not be a victim.

Thou shalt not be a perpetrator.

Above all, thou shalt not be a bystander.”

- Holocaust Museum, Washington D.C.

Well, as it turned out, it did, didn’t it? I mean, he didn’t have WMD’s.

Indeed, but as usual libs never think past today. He had the infrastructure and the personnel ready to go as soon as he could skirt the sanctions, which he was actively doing.

Have to cut and paste it for some reason the link won’t work:

LINK

I’ll give you some of the best parts, though:

According to the way the story was handled on the air and in the CBS online account of it, as well as the way the international press picked it up, the big news was that Saddam got rid of his WMD in the 1990s, but refused to prove it–even when threatened by U.S. attack.

Moreover, it does not compare to the golden news nugget lodged deep within the Sixty Minutes segment; namely, that Saddam expressly told Piro that he had planned to restart the WMD program in all phases–”chemical, biological and nuclear”–within a year after the lifting of U.N. sanctions. The 9/11 attacks and the reactions to them set back his plan, but didn’t eliminate it.

He also believed that the worst that President George W. Bush would do to him was to drop some bombs, the way President Clinton had done in 1998.

Here’s another story about the interview with Saddam:

Kessler Scoops 60 Minutes

Saddam also told Piro he planned on developing a WMD program with nuclear capability within a year, Kessler revealed in his book, which was excerpted in the December issue of Newsmax magazine.

So again, what’s your plan? Keep the sanctions on Iraq forever, even though they have killed millions:

Effect of Iraq Sanctions

Dennis Halliday, the just resigned United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator said “we are losing 6,000 to 7,000 children a month, dying every month, as a consequence of the sanctions (New York Times 1/3/99).

So which is it, ChenZen? Do we keep the sanctions going forever? What if Saddam finds away around the sanctions like he was seeking?

You seem to have lots of criticism, but no answers.

Everyone thought that he should have been. It’s an aside from the argument I’m making.

Confronted? He had been confronted for 12 years and had simply given the inspectors the run around. So again, what’s the answer?

Again, this is about whether Bush lied about his intentions to resolve the situation peacefully, not whether he manipulated or fabricated the actual intelligence. Listing all these quotes doesn’t address my argument.

Ah, I see. So you knew his intentions? Please provide a link to “President Bush’s intentions”, because I’d love to see it.

Also, do the dems get a pass since they authorized the war? And please don’t give me that “We gave it to him, but we didn’t think he was going to USE it!” garbage that all the dems have been using. It is ignorant and a lie.

Yep. You know what is in Bush’s mind and pointed to other people who know what is in Bush’s mind. You all think that he hoped for war. Nice.

Grow UP! You nor anyone else know that Bush “hoped for no military action” or not. But you think that Bush doesn’t “care” for the poor and elderly also…. so I rest my case…

Chen wrote with no understanding of following consequences, “in that we should pull troops out and not leave permanent bases behind.”

We’ll handle it from here…. Many Democrats and leftists have acknowledged that would be bad policy and have said so in the NY Times and Wash Post. I certainly hope your wishes on anything never come true if this is the kind of thinking you have…. Irresponsible….

You like to argue the past.

Accept the present.

Try to think of good policy moving forward.

-Comment by Baklava @ 3/7/2008 – 12:32 am

We got onto a tangent because people were challenging me on the “based on falsehoods” aspect of my original argument, which was very much grounded in the present in that we should pull troops out and not leave permanent bases behind.

But Saddam made a last-minute bid to avert war, admitting that Iraq had once possessed weapons of mass destruction to defend itself from Iran and Israel – but insisting that it no longer has them.

In other words, he refused to cooperate until the bombs were on the way, and then made a half-hearted effort. For the ChenZhens of the world, any slight attempt by an anti-American dictator to be accomodating is sufficient for us to grovel before him. The problem is, what Saddam was saying was “just words”, to use a phrase the Obamaphiles are in love with right now. As soon as the military threat was gone, he’d have resumed his nuclear research, and you know it. The problem is that accepting that reality isn’t compatible with your BDS, so you ignore it.

If ChenZhen had his way, we’d have continually backed off from any action against Saddam (ever notice how liberals always find something appealing about anti-Semitic and America-hating thugs?) right up to the day he unwrapped a brand-new set of nukes. And then Chen would spend his time navel-gazing and wondering what evil thing WE did to bring this about.

Also – Baklava’s right. Chen hasn’t spoken one word to what needs to be done now, and hasn’t responded to a single comment from me or anyone else on that score. That’s because the left has no solutions to combatting terrorism other than to assume the fetal position, suck their thumbs, and blame someone else.

Liberalism is indeed a mental illness. ChenZhen probably thinks his views are original and innovative and well thought out, but then delusions are common unfortunately. Every sheep thinks it’s a sheepdog apparently.

Accept the present.

Try to think of good policy moving forward.

Riiiiiiight, because the previous TWELVE years of the same thing had produced such fruitful results.

Well, as it turned out, it did, didn’t it? I mean, he didn’t have WMD’s. There was certainly a sentiment in Congress that giving Bush the authority to attack Iraq could avert war by demonstrating the United States is willing to confront Saddam over his obligations to the United Nations. It was on this premise that they voted for the resolution. The AUMF, as it was written, was not an outright declaration of war on Iraq. It allowed Bush to determine when diplomatic efforts had failed.

There goes that selective memory of yours, again. I seem to recall that on the eve of the invasion, Bush told Saddam again that he could avoid the war if he resigned and went into exile. Of course, after eight years of Clinton doing absolutely nothing Saddam figured the invasion was just saber rattling.

Did Saddam accept exile offer before invasion? Seriously though, it might have worked if there was more than a 48 hour window to work out the details. It seemed pretty unrealistic to me at the time. I mean, most ordinary people can’t plan a vacation in 48 hours.

Of course you don’t. You’re only interested in your truth, not anybody else’s. As I said before, if the truth or facts do not fit your argument, then they do not exist. This statement proves that, thank you.

I haven’t denied that the intelligence community or the Dems thought that Iraq had a weapons program, or that they thought Saddam should be confronted over it. Everyone thought that he should have been. It’s an aside from the argument I’m making.

Wrong again, chief. It’s obvious that you didn’t read any of those quotes, I didn’t expect that you would. If you did, you would see that many of the quotes from the dems on Iraq came before 2001. That’s right, they came BEFORE Bush was in office. So either then dems were lying or Bush manipulated the intelligence while still governor of Texas.

Which is it?

-Comment by NC Cop @ 3/6/2008 – 10:24 pm

Again, this is about whether Bush lied about his intentions to resolve the situation peacefully, not whether he manipulated or fabricated the actual intelligence. Listing all these quotes doesn’t address my argument.

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.

So, no, I’m not a mind reader. But I think it’s fair to assume that the British administration wasn’t making this up.

Interestingly, the DSM also outlines the rationale for sending the inspectors back in (because it doesn’t make a lot to do that if you’re planning on invading anyway):

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.

Indeed. The inspectors were the key. Congress wouldn’t have signed on to an AUMF without the condition allowing the inspectors in first, and Saddam was unlikely to allow the inspectors unless he knew the threat of force is real. So, in they went, and they stayed long enough to appear that they made the token effort outlined in the DSM. But , WMD or no, the administration was anxious to start bombing and finally get this thing underway, so:

But Saddam made a last-minute bid to avert war, admitting that Iraq had once possessed weapons of mass destruction to defend itself from Iran and Israel – but insisting that it no longer has them.

“We are not weapons collectors,” the official Iraqi News Agency quoted him as saying. “When Saddam Hussein says he has no weapons of mass destruction, he means what he says.”

Some of the inspectors were wearing their blue U.N. caps and waved to reporters as they left the terminal Tuesday.

“It’s unfortunate we have to leave now,” Ueki said at the airport. “I think all the inspectors and support staff have done our best.”

The Germans,at the time, asked a good question:

“Why should we leave the path we have embarked on now that the inspections on the basis of Resolution 1441 are showing viable results?”

There really aren’t that many dots to connect here gang. The majority of America figured this out a long time ago. There was never an intention for a peaceful solution.

The American people (and Congress) were presented an AUMF that was viewed as the best way to disarm Saddam and avoid hostilities,

Riiiiiiight, because the previous TWELVE years of the same thing had produced such fruitful results.

Bush said “hopefully no military action” the day he signed the darn thing. That was the lie.

There goes that selective memory of yours, again. I seem to recall that on the eve of the invasion, Bush told Saddam again that he could avoid the war if he resigned and went into exile. Of course, after eight years of Clinton doing absolutely nothing Saddam figured the invasion was just saber rattling.

I’m not going to contest previous statements by Dems. I don’t have to.

Of course you don’t. You’re only interested in your truth, not anybody else’s. As I said before, if the truth or facts do not fit your argument, then they do not exist. This statement proves that, thank you.

The rest of the stuff about WMD’s and connections to terrorism was just part of the dog and pony show anyway. This is always about the bigger lie.

Wrong again, chief. It’s obvious that you didn’t read any of those quotes, I didn’t expect that you would. If you did, you would see that many of the quotes from the dems on Iraq came before 2001. That’s right, they came BEFORE Bush was in office. So either then dems were lying or Bush manipulated the intelligence while still governor of Texas.

Which is it?

after writing, “Bush said “hopefully no military action” the day he signed the darn thing.”

So…. your argument is that you know what was in Bush’s head and you know that he didn’t “hope” that there wasn’t military action.

So… what am I thinking now? How about now? If I tell you what I’m thinking will you then tell me I’m lying and that you know better what is in my head than my own self?

Wow – you libs have guts…

So I’m curious, were all those dems lying? Are they part of the “falsehoods” that helped justify the invasion.

-Comment by NC Cop @ 3/6/2008 – 1:45 pm

The American people (and Congress) were presented an AUMF that was viewed as the best way to disarm Saddam and avoid hostilities, Bush viewed it as the best way to get his war. Bush said “hopefully no military action” the day he signed the darn thing. That was the lie. He had made up his mind to go in before the AUMF was even voted on.

I’m not going to contest previous statements by Dems. I don’t have to. The rest of the stuff about WMD’s and connections to terrorism was just part of the dog and pony show anyway. This is always about the bigger lie.