http://www.salon.com/politics/war_ro...tml/index.html
You might have to watch a commercial to read this

Extract

KWIATKOWSKI: My concern is that George Tenet is absolutely correct.
The facts that he had were not even used. The facts that were used to
make up the propaganda, the content of the presidential speeches in the
fall of 2002, much of that information was never produced by the CIA. It
was information from other sources.

GIBSON: Well, right. But why do you call it propaganda? I mean, people
who are elected to make decisions about the safety of the nation have to
make a prudent decision based on the information they see. Why would you
characterize the information they see and what they say about their
decisions as propaganda instead of prudent decisions? What do you know?

KWIATKOWSKI: Yes. Well, prudence does not enter into the things that
were said in the fall of 2002 to the Congress and to the American
people. That was very imprudent as we know now, as the president has had
to backtrack on many of those things. So, prudence doesn't enter it.

GIBSON: Wait a minute, are you saying that war was such a grave error
that today Saddam Hussein should still be running Iraq?

KWIATKOWSKI: I like how you put that question.

GIBSON: Well, what's the answer?

KWIATKOWSKI: I'm no fan of Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein should not be
running Iraq but the Iraqi people should be the ones that make that
decision not ...

GIBSON: But Ms. Kwiatkowski, what you seem to be saying is, yes, I want
it both ways, I want Saddam Hussein gone but I want to criticize the
president for doing it because I don't like the reasons he cited for
doing it.

KWIATKOWSKI: You know what? I don't like the lies that are being called
reasons. Ok? There are some very valid reasons for this country to have
gone in and toppled Saddam Hussein. None of those reasons were presented
by the president or the vice president ...

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 13:10:55 -0500, Jim wrote:

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_ro...tml/index.html
You might have to watch a commercial to read this

Extract

KWIATKOWSKI: My concern is that George Tenet is absolutely correct.
The facts that he had were not even used. The facts that were used to
make up the propaganda, the content of the presidential speeches in the
fall of 2002, much of that information was never produced by the CIA. It
was information from other sources.

GIBSON: Well, right. But why do you call it propaganda? I mean, people
who are elected to make decisions about the safety of the nation have to
make a prudent decision based on the information they see. Why would you
characterize the information they see and what they say about their
decisions as propaganda instead of prudent decisions? What do you know?

KWIATKOWSKI: Yes. Well, prudence does not enter into the things that
were said in the fall of 2002 to the Congress and to the American
people. That was very imprudent as we know now, as the president has had
to backtrack on many of those things. So, prudence doesn't enter it.

GIBSON: Wait a minute, are you saying that war was such a grave error
that today Saddam Hussein should still be running Iraq?

KWIATKOWSKI: I like how you put that question.

GIBSON: Well, what's the answer?

KWIATKOWSKI: I'm no fan of Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein should not be
running Iraq but the Iraqi people should be the ones that make that
decision not ...

GIBSON: But Ms. Kwiatkowski, what you seem to be saying is, yes, I want
it both ways, I want Saddam Hussein gone but I want to criticize the
president for doing it because I don't like the reasons he cited for
doing it.

KWIATKOWSKI: You know what? I don't like the lies that are being called
reasons. Ok? There are some very valid reasons for this country to have
gone in and toppled Saddam Hussein. None of those reasons were presented
by the president or the vice president ...

No reasons. Right. Lest we forget:

"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 invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition,
Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the
cover of a
licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will
threaten
the United States and our allies."

- Letter to President Bush, Signed by (FORMER) Sen. Bob Graham (D,
FL,) and
others,
December 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


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


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


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


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


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


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

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 17:43:10 -0500, John H wrote:

"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

I don't understand the logic in using the above quote. I would suggest
that the absence of WMDs in Iraq, shows that Clinton was successful in his
efforts, without the loss of 500 American soldiers and a couple of hundred
billion dollars.

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 18:00:36 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 17:43:10 -0500, John H wrote:

"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

I don't understand the logic in using the above quote. I would suggest
that the absence of WMDs in Iraq, shows that Clinton was successful in his
efforts, without the loss of 500 American soldiers and a couple of hundred
billion dollars.

Clinton's policy called for a regime change in Iraq.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 17:43:10 -0500, John H wrote:

"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

I don't understand the logic in using the above quote. I would suggest
that the absence of WMDs in Iraq, shows that Clinton was successful in his
efforts, without the loss of 500 American soldiers and a couple of hundred
billion dollars.

Clinton would have made the same move as Bush had 9/11 happened 12 month
earlier. There were war plans against Iraq in the works back in 1998.
Madelaine Albright went on a trip to Europe to try and muster support for an
attack.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middl...raq_2-17a.html

Being the spineless politician that he is, Clinton backed off the threat of
war, and the weapons programs continued. Even in 1998, most of the
inpectors believed that Saddam had a chemical weapons program that could be
ramped up to produce large quantities of the stuff as soon as the missiles
to deliver them were developed.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middl...iraq_2-16.html

We have since learned that Saddam's missile program was much further along
than we had originally thought. At a moments notice, it's conceivable that
he could have replenished his stock of chemical weapons, loaded the
missiles, and launched against Israel, or our troops in the region.

The people were there. The know-how was there. The technology was there.
And the will was there. Saddam used the long period of build-up to the war
and all of the pussy-footing around with the UN to conceal his program...and
likely ship most of it to Syria.

In article , jherring$$@
$$cox**.net says...
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 18:00:36 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 17:43:10 -0500, John H wrote:

"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

I don't understand the logic in using the above quote. I would suggest
that the absence of WMDs in Iraq, shows that Clinton was successful in his
efforts, without the loss of 500 American soldiers and a couple of hundred
billion dollars.

Clinton's policy called for a regime change in Iraq.

Yes, but using diplomacy and a real coalition. One that wouldn't have
cost America 1000 lives, 10000 injuries and hundreds of billions of
dollars.

Bush's objective may not have been flawed, his methods certainly were.

jps

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 09:17:55 -0800, jps wrote:

In article , jherring$$@
$$cox**.net says...
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 18:00:36 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 17:43:10 -0500, John H wrote:

"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

I don't understand the logic in using the above quote. I would suggest
that the absence of WMDs in Iraq, shows that Clinton was successful in his
efforts, without the loss of 500 American soldiers and a couple of hundred
billion dollars.

Clinton's policy called for a regime change in Iraq.

Yes, but using diplomacy and a real coalition. One that wouldn't have
cost America 1000 lives, 10000 injuries and hundreds of billions of
dollars.

Bush's objective may not have been flawed, his methods certainly were.

jps

A policy of inaction, in other words.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

In article , jherring$$@
$$cox**.net says...
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 09:17:55 -0800, jps wrote:

In article , jherring$$@
$$cox**.net says...
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 18:00:36 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 17:43:10 -0500, John H wrote:

"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

I don't understand the logic in using the above quote. I would suggest
that the absence of WMDs in Iraq, shows that Clinton was successful in his
efforts, without the loss of 500 American soldiers and a couple of hundred
billion dollars.

Clinton's policy called for a regime change in Iraq.

Yes, but using diplomacy and a real coalition. One that wouldn't have
cost America 1000 lives, 10000 injuries and hundreds of billions of
dollars.

Bush's objective may not have been flawed, his methods certainly were.

jps

A policy of inaction, in other words.

Apparently, our policy of "inaction" had completely disarmed Saddam.

Bush's policy amounts to wasted lives, money and America's focus.