Democrats & Liberals Archives

Look What We've Done

It has often been documented that we didn’t have a plan for peace when we invaded Iraq on false pretences. But the sectarian war that we have stirred there could never have been anticipated, not by hawks like Wolfowitz, not by doves like Murtha. It simply couldn’t, and didn’t, occur to them that by now masked gangs of men would be dousing five-year olds in gas, and setting them alight.

Would Bush have invaded, had he the benefit of hindsight? Would he cry, as I did, at the sheer unadulterated evil that we have allowed to be unleashed against this small boy, who is the same age as my daughter?

Probably not. Today Bush is invoking the Vietnam war, trying to rewrite history so that we perceive it as something we should have stuck with for longer. Trying to suggest that the death of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people had a point – but what?

Perhaps Bush doesn’t remember the image of the tiny girl running toward the camera as the napalm burned the skin off her body. Or the photo of the summary execution, the victim’s brains scattered to the four winds in glorious monochrome for our delectation. Or perhaps he simply doesn’t care. He simply wants to justify his unjustifiable actions in Iraq.

Did we not learn our lesson? Did history teach us nothing?

We have created a nation of religious zealots in Iraq. A nation in which this kind of thing happens more frequently than we like to think of, as we sit in our cozy homes where the only worry we have about our children is whether they’ll stub their toes on the chair legs.

Some of you will say that this Shi’ite – Sunni war was destined to happen eventually. I question whether the brutality of the conflict would have been so great without the US involvement. We led by example: torturing, incarcerating without reason, murdering civilians. We led, and the zealots followed.

We have allowed the specter of genocide to raise its head in Iraq. Now, no matter what we do, it’s a matter of time. Can we prevent it if we stay? The evidence says not. Can we prevent it if we leave? Commonsense says no.

Vietnam was often described as a quagmire. But getting out of Vietnam didn’t result in the bloody, ruthless, barbaric situation in Iraq.

In fact, if only Iraq were so simple.

Posted by Jon Rice at August 22, 2007 11:51 AM
Comment #230244

Err, actually it could have been anticipated. And was. By Dick Cheny, as early as 1994. He predicted everything that has happened, including civil war, though he did not get into such graphic specifics as your opening example.

Posted by: Jarandhel at August 22, 2007 12:19 PM
Comment #230247


We have created a nation of religious zealots in Iraq.

No, they existed there long before we invaded, long before the Americas were discovered. They weren’t simply created because we overthrew Saddam. At the sanctions that the UN had placed on the country were eating it out from the inside like a bad apple core. Why don’t you list them in your little article?

A nation in which this kind of thing happens more frequently than we like to think of, as we sit in our cozy homes where the only worry we have about our children is whether they’ll stub their toes on the chair legs.

And was happening long before we were there. It seems that some are only concerned when it can get them more power. If we can pin horrors onto our political opponent without offering any alternatives, which I notice you don’t in your post. You even seem to purposely ignore the situation before 2003 by an offhanded comment that there was no reason for our invasion when there most definately was, just one you choose to disagree with.

Let’s just look at some of the things that Saddam was doing to the citizens before we arrived:


As for details, I’ll list a few of the more egregious of them. There are a large number that I won’t be including for space reasons.

(a) public beheadings of women who were accused of being prostitutes, which took place in front of family members, including children. The heads of the victims were publicly displayed near signs reading, “For the honor of Iraq.”. 130 documented and many more suspected cases.

(b) human rights violations directed against children. Children, as young as 5 years old, were recruited into the “Ashbal Saddam,” or “Saddam’s Cubs,” and indoctrinated to adulate Saddam Hussein and denounce their own family members. The children were also subjected to military training, which includes cruelty to animals. Parents of children were executed if they object to this treatment, and in some cases, the children themselves were imprisoned.

(c) Full political participation at the national level was restricted only to members of the Arab Ba’ath Socialist Party, which constituted only 8% of the population. Therefore, it was impossible for Iraqi citizens to change their government.

(d) Iraqi citizens were not allowed to assemble legally unless it is to express support for the government. The Iraqi government controlled the establishment of political parties, regulates their internal affairs and monitors their activities.

(e) Police checkpoints on Iraqi’s roads and highways prevented ordinary citizens from traveling abroad without government permission and expensive exit visas. Before traveling, an Iraqi citizen had to post collateral. Iraqi women could not travel outside of the Country without the escort of a male relative.

(f) The activities of citizens living inside Iraq who received money from relatives abroad were closely monitored.

(g) In 1988, the Hussein regime began a campaign of extermination against the Kurdish people living in Northern and Southern Iraq. The attacks resulted in the death of at least 50,000 (some reports estimate as many as 100,000 people), many of them women and children. A team of Human Rights Watch investigators determined, after analyzing eighteen tons of captured Iraqi documents, testing soil samples and carrying out interviews with more than 350 witnesses, that the attacks on the Kurdish people were characterized by gross violations of human rights, including mass executions and disappearances of many tens of thousands of noncombatants, widespread use of chemical weapons including Sarin, mustard gas and nerve agents that killed thousands, the arbitrary imprisoning of tens of thousands of women, children, and elderly people for months in conditions of extreme deprivation, forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of villagers after the demolition of their homes, and the wholesale destruction of nearly two thousand villages along with their schools, mosques, farms, and power stations.

(h) In June of 1994, the Hussein regime in Iraq established severe penalties, including amputation, branding and the death penalty for criminal offenses such as theft, corruption, currency speculation and military desertion.

(i) In April of 2003, CNN admitted that it withheld information about Iraq torturing journalists and Iraqi citizens that were interviewed by CNN in the 1990s. According to CNN, the channel kept the information secret because they were afraid that their journalists would be killed if they reported it.


(a) The systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law by the Government of Iraq, resulting in an all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based discrimination and widespread terror

(b) The suppression of freedom of thought, expression, information, association, assembly and movement through fear of arrest, imprisonment, execution, expulsion, house demolition and other sanctions

(c) The repression faced by any kind of opposition, in particular the harassment and intimidation of and threats against Iraqi opponents living abroad and members of their families

(d) The widespread use of the death penalty in disregard of the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations safeguards

(e) Summary and arbitrary executions, including political killings and the continued so-called clean-out of prisons; the use of rape as a political tool, as well as enforced or involuntary disappearances, routinely practiced arbitrary arrests and detention, and consistent and routine failure to respect due process and the rule of law

(f) Widespread, systematic torture and the maintaining of decrees prescribing cruel and inhuman punishment as a penalty for offences

There has been nothing but this kind of violence in this part of the globe for as long as anyone can remember. Saddam kept it ‘relatively’ peaceful by being the most oppressive and brutal on the block, ruling by fear. If we had gone in and treated the citizens as he did, there probably wouldn’t be the type of violence you see now, but which is better? Treating a citizenry as Saddam did, ruling by fear or allowing them to experience and work out pent up decades of hatred and work it out for themselves? BTW, I agree we should have been out of Iraq years ago, but let’s not be purposely ignorant of the realities of the nation in order to make political points.

We led by example: torturing, incarcerating without reason, murdering civilians.

What an idiotic statement. See above re: Saddam. You seem to think that these peace loving clerics were twisted by the US aggression, the likes that they’ve never seen. Get real, it doesn’t help your argument by being purposely obtuse.

We have allowed the specter of genocide to raise its head in Iraq.

Get your Genocide here! Never seen in Iraq before!

Well, unless you were Kurdish I suppose…

BTW, how do you stop Genocide? The people in Darfur would like to know…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 22, 2007 12:40 PM
Comment #230248

We as a nation,have no more respect left in the world.

Posted by: the libertine at August 22, 2007 12:41 PM
Comment #230249

The (Black Five)are thugs and child killers.They should be brought to the,(National Razor).

Posted by: the libertine at August 22, 2007 12:47 PM
Comment #230251

Jon Rice, it was entirely predictable. Read the 2001 or 2002 CIA Fact Book on Iraq. Entirely predictable and there is no doubt whatsoever that the CIA informed Bush of the outcome predicted by the CIA’s own data on Iraq as published in the public CIA Fact Book of 2001 and 2002.

I read the 2001 book online when I first heard of a proposal to invade Iraq. I was convinced by that reading that there would be no end to instability and internal factional and sectarian fighting that would take place once Saddam’s Iron Fisted rule had been removed. Hence, I opposed the war from the very beginning, and asked Americans here in a WatchBlog article if 350 American dead soldiers was enough, or how about 500? I ask again, is 3,800 American Dead and many times that number with parts of their being blown away, enough? Is there any cost too high for Americans to support as long as it is other Americans suffering the losses, and the deficits and debt can be passed on to our children and their children?

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 22, 2007 12:49 PM
Comment #230252
we invaded Iraq on false pretences

BTW, what false pretenses were those? That Saddam was in violation of several Chapter 7 UN Resolutions? That he had ties and directly participated in International Terrorism? That he had a list of WMD stock that was unaccounted for? That he was purposely blocking UN inspectors’ attempts to determine the whereabouts of that material? That he was brutalizing his own citizens to remain in power? That he was taking shots at US and UN Air Force personnel attempting to kill them? That he attempted to assassinate a former US president? That he stated before the invasion that Iraq was still at war with the US?

I’m curious just which of those ‘false pretenses’ you can prove were false with information we had before we invaded? Keeping in mind of course that Joe Wilson’s little trip to Niger actually bolstered the CIA assessment that Iraq *DID* try to obtain nuclear materials from that country. Or that al Qaeda was using Iraq checmical weapon recipies in their Al Shifa plant before Clinton blew it up?

I’m all for the breadth of the false pretenses, I’m sure that they are expansive across all of these areas…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 22, 2007 12:55 PM
Comment #230253


Which is worse, leaving the people to live under Saddam or letting them devolve into a civil war which could eventually bring them around to either a united country or three separate countries that could move towards a future?

We went through a Civil War that was bloody and horrific. And we are the better for it, IMO… In fact, I think that the only reasons anyone cares that there is on in Iraq are that we are still there and there is oil there. If it weren’t for those two things, we might hear an occasional blip about it on our nightly news.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 22, 2007 12:58 PM
Comment #230259

The people lived better under Saddam,than they do now.

Posted by: the libertine at August 22, 2007 1:16 PM
Comment #230261

the libertine,

How are you quantifying this or do you just wish it to be so. Are you taking into consideration their ability to have a future that this could never have under Saddam?

Basically, just saying something like that doesn’t make it true, no matter how hard you wish it.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 22, 2007 1:21 PM
Comment #230264

David & Jarandhel - I should have made myself clearer. Civil war could have been, and was predicted, but I don’t think the level of barbarism was. Rhinehold mentions Darfur, and perhaps that terrible conflict should have alerted us to what would happen once the country was allowed to devolve into civil war.

My point was that evil on this scale is, imo, unimaginable. Given that fact, could Cheney have imagined it?

Actually, maybe. Perhaps his imagination simply doesn’t suffer the revulsion at the thought of children burning that mine does.

Rhinehold, you seem to feel that I’m a Hussein apologist. In fact, I expect you feel that way about anyone who is disgusted by our involvement in Iraq. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

I do not condone the acts of violence he visited upon his people. I do not believe in any way, shape or form that he should have been allowed to live, in fact. But walking in and toppling a dictator is one thing; failing to plan for the consequences is quite another.

Posted by: Jon Rice at August 22, 2007 1:33 PM
Comment #230265


I agree, we should have been out of there 3 months after we removed Saddam and allowed UN peacekeeping forces to keep the peace as they offered to do. Bush failed miserably at that. But your article seems to paint the picture that ‘WE’ created barbarism that these people know, when in fact they learned it long before we got here. You mention it several times in the article, which is why I wanted to make sure it was not left out there that Iraq was a peaceloving country before we arrived in 2003. In fact, I have yet to see the type of violence that we knew occurred under Saddam, even this instance that you detail.

Basically, we should have went in, we should have done it right and we should no longer be there. Perhaps if Bush had not been pushed into finding the WMD because of his own stupidity and the equal stupidity of his opponents he would have been more willing to let the UN take over when they should have…

Nah, I doubt Bush would have ever done that, it seems to go against his nature…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 22, 2007 1:40 PM
Comment #230268

Rhinehold -

Yes, Iraq was a barbarous country under Hussein. Agree completely. No matter the scale of the violence, whether it be greater now than under his dictatorship or not, he was an evil man. And vicious and inexplicably horrific things were done in his name.

Perhaps my point should be that we had an opportunity - a chance to make Iraq a better place - and even if I disagree with the decision to go in there, if we had achieved that goal I would not frown so strongly on our intervention.

But we didn’t… and it seems to me that the butchery and slaughter that pervades that country now hardly justifies our actions. To use an old cliche, out of the frying pan and into the fire.

I just wish we’d been smarter…

Posted by: Jon Rice at August 22, 2007 1:53 PM
Comment #230269

What total rewrite of history is THAT????
don’t you get it YET
the WMD’s were a fiction of Bush’s doing!!
His Stupidity was in thinking he could do anything in Iraq that would promote any kind of US interests (other than Haliburton’s)
What nonsense (other than admitting to Bush’s stupidity)

Posted by: Russ at August 22, 2007 1:58 PM
Comment #230271

If Rhinehold thinks there are WMDs.He should go and find them himself.

Posted by: the libertine at August 22, 2007 2:07 PM
Comment #230272

Hey Rhinehold,there is no Easter Bunny,and God hates Bush.

Posted by: the libertine at August 22, 2007 2:12 PM
Comment #230275
I just wish we’d been smarter…


Posted by: Rhinehold at August 22, 2007 2:27 PM
Comment #230277


don’t you get it YET the WMD’s were a fiction of Bush’s doing!!

Umm, no. The UN had a list of known WMD agents in the possession of Iraq after the 1991 war. Iraq was ordered, and agreed, to destroy that stock within 120 days. But, because he twarted the inspection process for 12 years after the fact we could not verify the destruction of the entire catalog. It also hinted that Iraq was trying to produce more after he realized the sanctions wouldn’t be lifted in 1996 like he had hoped.

The fact is that we did not know, and had no way of knowing, what the current status of his stock was and if he was producing more. And this a direct result of Saddam’s interference and actions.

So, you can spout your revisionist nonsense all you want, what we know NOW and what we knew THEN are two completely different things. And if we *DID* know that he had no WMD, then the UN sanctions should have been lifted because we, as a world, were killing thousands upon thousands of children there because of them. The fact that we didn’t speaks loudly to our ‘knowing’ that they had no WMD.

So go try your propogandist slogans on someone else.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 22, 2007 2:33 PM
Comment #230278
Hey Rhinehold,there is no Easter Bunny,and God hates Bush.

There is no god either, what’s your point?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 22, 2007 2:35 PM
Comment #230279

It always amazes me that if Bush was so stupid, how he convinced 90% of the US and an overwhelming majority of the government to follow him into this war for the reasons now touted by russ…that’s a lot of people to “con” at the same time…maybe he’s smarter then we give him credit for…

Hey “berti”, how do you know that God hates Bush?

Posted by: cliff at August 22, 2007 2:39 PM
Comment #230280

I think we f*cked up big time in invading Iraq and in the subsequent management of the war. But as far as atrocity goes, we didn’t invent that. The Iran-Iraq War, as just one quick example, was extremely barbaric. We tend to hear more about atrocities in Iraq now because we are there, and no, that is not a criticism of media reporting — it’s just how it is.

Posted by: Gerrold at August 22, 2007 2:40 PM
Comment #230282

Bush does not give a rats @$$ about the people of Iraq!!!!!!!!!!!!
This whole disaster has been about blood for oil!!!!!!!!!!!
Halliburton, KBR, Titan, Black Water, Exxon, etc. are making a killing off of this blood for oil scam!!!!! Do you think they want to give up the cash??????? The cash could roll in for these profiteers for many decades to come, if bush applies the right spin on this. This piece of garbage has played every spin in his bag of tricks to get us in this mess and keep us in this mess!!!!!!!!!!!! It is the cash people!!!!!!!! Do not let the smokescreen blind you from the truth. This is the same guy who denies poor children health care, and then calls him self a compassionate conservative. When he talked to Jesus this is what he told him to do?????? We can never fall asleep and let this happen again!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Outraged at August 22, 2007 3:14 PM
Comment #230293

I also hate Zionist.

Posted by: the libertine at August 22, 2007 3:46 PM
Comment #230294


sounds like a personal problem…there are people out there who can help you…

Posted by: cliff at August 22, 2007 3:49 PM
Comment #230296

Rhinehold, where your argument fails in is in stipulating the truth ONLY SO FAR. Yes, he had WMD at one time, NONE of which were a threat to the American homeland. We were told he may have nuclear weapons under development. In 2003 before the invasion the intelligence leaked out that even if he had rudimentary technology to begin making fissible materials, our intelligence KNEW he did not have intercontinental ballistic missile capability. Hence, again, he was no threat to America.

Yes, he was brutal toward his people, not toward ours. Yes, he did offer payments to the families of suicide bombers who spent themselves in Israel. But, again, this was NOT a terrorist threat against the United States.

The great lies told by Cheney, Bush, Wolfowitz, Rice, and even Colin Powell, were that Iraq or Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the United States. There was no defensive rationale for invading Iraq. Yet, this lie of threat to the U.S. was promulgated precisely because the TRUTH would not have swayed support for invasion.

Your arguments STOPS at “He was a threat”. Failing to acknowledge that he was no threat to the U.S., and indeed continuing to promulgate by deception of sophistry, that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the U.S. There are many ways to deceive, bold faced lies are not the only tool in that toolbox, as your argument more than adequately demonstrates.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 22, 2007 4:00 PM
Comment #230298

Cliff, the answer to your question as to how the Bush administration convinced the public is in my reply to Rhinehold directly above.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 22, 2007 4:06 PM
Comment #230299

I’m sorry David, but I disagree. We know that with his support and direction of International Terrorism and his involvement in the Al Shifa plant along with al Qaeda, there there was a very real likelyhood that eventually he would get tired of trying to get the sanctions removed and take action against the US.

That is what was meant by ‘9/11 changed everything’. Not that he was involved in 9/11, but that we learned on that day that you don’t need ICMBs to deliver a large scale attack on the US. Heck, you didn’t even need WMDs. The fear was that he would use his connections with the terrorist community, or his own intelligence forces that were actively working IN THE US to threaten former Iraqi citizens, to deliver these weapons in a way other than using long range missles. The very real threat was displayed on TV for us to see.

Basically, if al Qaeda could do it, wouldn’t it make sense that Saddam could as well, especially now that he had been shown that he could?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 22, 2007 4:08 PM
Comment #230305

Mr. Remer,

My comments were purely satirical in nature…if Bush is so “stupid”, how could he pull the proverbial wool over so many peoples eyes…

BTW: There were no lies…hindsight is always 20/20…see Rhineholds comments above

Posted by: cliff at August 22, 2007 4:39 PM
Comment #230320

Rhinehold said: “there there was a very real likelyhood that eventually he would get tired of trying to get the sanctions removed and take action against the US.”

WRONG! Saddam Hussein was a CYA dictator. He protected his rule with near perfect precision with only one major flaw and one minor one. The major was not denouncing claims of having WMD while the Blix folks were searching. The minor one was invading Kuwait. He obviously did not predict the containment policy that would follow as accurately as he predicted GHW Bush would not dethrone him for it.

The point being, he was not prone to take the actions you allude to which would have surely created the predicate for his removal. Your argument is based on possibles, maybes, and potentials in the future. Not on any imminent threat against the U.S. which the Bush administration created in the minds of the American people.

Preemptive war not tied to imminent threat as a policy demands we attack Iran, China, Russia, Venequela, N. Korea, Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon. Your argument falls flat on its face for that is precisely the doctrine you are defending.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 22, 2007 5:31 PM
Comment #230321

Cliff, Read the 2001 CIA Fact book before displaying ignorance of what was public information PRIOR to the invasion of Iraq. It reads as the foundation for Dick Cheney’s analysis of invading Iraq in 1994.

There were lies, and your denial of them in your comment falls into the 29% of folks who still support Bush’s Presidency and decision to invade Iraq. It’s good though that you are willing to publicly acknowledge such denial. That is the exercise of our First Amendment right and that is always a good thing in a public forum.

The very statement that Iraqis will welcome us with open arms or similar statement was a blatant lie by the very man who knew best that this would not be the case for all Iraqis, and said as much in a televised interview in 1994. That is about as blatant a lie as lying gets. Then there were the images of Mushroom Clouds and allusions to them. Lie after lie. Our intelligence said before the invasion that Iraq did not have intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching the U.S. They also knew his missile capability was barely able to reach Israel. Lie after lie.

This is all public record. Verify it for yourself if reality and truth have any meaning for your future comments.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 22, 2007 5:40 PM
Comment #230326

before the usa invasion of iraq scot ritter a lead inspector for the un was on every tv station insisting it was not possible for hussein to have wmd. you can diparage scott ritter but he was right. now you come up with another smoke screen claiming we had to invade iraq because of 9/11 we were vulnerable to iraq sending who knows what to the us. but to follow this line of thinking we should attack china russia n korea iran or any country that challenges our actions.
what i can’t understand is that you are so articulate why you would give these childish rationalization that make no sense.

Posted by: albert at August 22, 2007 6:08 PM
Comment #230329


If Bush really lied then he should be impeached, but he won’t be…

Why are the democrats afraid to impeach?
They have several lame excuses…
I’d like to hear yours…

Posted by: cliff at August 22, 2007 6:30 PM
Comment #230334
The point being, he was not prone to take the actions you allude to which would have surely created the predicate for his removal. Your argument is based on possibles, maybes, and potentials in the future. Not on any imminent threat against the U.S. which the Bush administration created in the minds of the American people.

Except attempting to assassinate GWB Sr. or planning to attack the US or giving aid and help to terrorist organizations in order to do their bidding for him while keeping his hands clean.

I’m sorry David, but none of the other countries you mentioned have tried any of these things, have stated pubically that they were at war with the US, were not shooting missles at US and UK planes and were not giving money (and who knows what else) to terrorist organizations, as well as the Sudaneese military complex.

No, you can state FOR SURE that you knew there was no way Saddam could attack the US but several people said the same about al Qaeda. He had the desire, he had the will and he had the means. I’m not sure why you have this notion that you think everyone should feel as solid as you do about the ability of the US to block attempts by the Iraqi intelligence forces who were already in the US or the myriad of terrorist organizations that Saddam supported, but a lot of people did not share your 100% knowledge of such, including this administration and the many people who supported the action for precisely those reasons.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 22, 2007 6:52 PM
Comment #230337
before the usa invasion of iraq scot ritter a lead inspector for the un was on every tv station insisting it was not possible for hussein to have wmd. you can diparage scott ritter but he was right. now you come up with another smoke screen claiming we had to invade iraq because of 9/11 we were vulnerable to iraq sending who knows what to the us. but to follow this line of thinking we should attack china russia n korea iran or any country that challenges our actions.

Scott Ritter said there was no way. Richard Butler, another inspector, said that he knew that they were there. Which one do you believe? And are you 100% that Scott was right and Richard was wrong, enough to say for sure? Enough to let the possible threat exist? Especially when Saddam was very public about his country still being at war with the US and shooting at our planes, nevermind supporting several terrorist organizations.

And no, I am not ‘bringing this up now’, I never supported going to Iraq for WMD, I supported it several years earlier when I was pushing President Clinton to do something, along with many in his party, because of the way he was blocking the inspection process then. In fact, it was mostly because of our 1991 back-turning we did on the Iraqi revolution who was slaughtered after WE got them to rise up at attempt it and then ignored their pleas for help.

In fact, you can read to see my views on the matter, including the AMERICANS that Saddam was directly responsible for killing through terrorist means during his control of Iraq.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 22, 2007 6:58 PM
Comment #230338

I remember very will Bush’s initial announcement that we may be invading Iraq. He very succinctly announced that we were in imminent danger via wmd of which Saddam possessed. He announced this to the whole world for all to see. He turned a blind eye to weapons inspectors who insisted there was no indication of any such threat in Iraq. He invaded against the will of the UN. It was quite obvious that he intended to invade regardless of what anyone else thought. We can only speculate as to what his true motivations were. My guess is we will never be able to prove those motivations as these people have a really bad case of forgetfulness when convenient. And the ever changing direction of endless spin is phenomenal.

I am in no way condoning the ruthless rule of Saddam prior to invasion. We invaded for the wrong reasons, unprepared and at the wrong time. The result is a catastrophic failure that has created a world of fear and danger in Iraq. At least the Iraqis knew who their enemy was when Saddam was in control. Now it seems as if life in Iraq consists of an environment where one really does not know just who is to be feared or trusted. It is an environment of fear inspired distrust where one has to watch each and every step in front and back to try and avoid those dangers.

Just today the Iraqi president announced that no one has the right to set time tables for the Iraqi government. He is right. And by this revelation it seems to me that we have no business occupying a country that does not wish to acknowledge the necessity for us to have goals. It indicates that we really are not seen as being needed and that they see us as an obstacle to their agenda.

Posted by: RickIL at August 22, 2007 6:59 PM
Comment #230344

“MOSCOW (Reuters) - A woman set fire to her ex-husband’s penis as he sat naked watching television and drinking vodka, Moscow police said Wednesday.”

Bush and his American soldiers must have invaded Moscow, for the burning of innocent people is certainly always America’s fault!


Posted by: JD at August 22, 2007 7:54 PM
Comment #230349

Meanwhile, for the last two years the American people have watched while on average 100 Iraqis have died every day. 730 X 100 = 73,000 that is the low estimate.

Two groups are the only beneficiaries of the Iraq War. The terrorists waging Jihad against the American imperialists and the corporations.

In his speech today, the President failed to mention a true analogy with Viet Nam.

The Democratically elected leader of Iraq, Malaki has failed to deliver on two key requirements. He can’t stop the civil war and he failed to get the oil contracts passed in the Iraqi Parliment. Malaki has even been insinuation that it is time for America to leave.

Yesterday, Bush announced his displeasure with Malaki and said that perhaps Iraq would be better served by a new leader. Since to my knowledge, no new democratic elections are scheduled in the near future, one might conclude that Bush was inviting a Coup. There’s your Viet Nam comparison. Today, Bush stepped back and reaffirmed his confidence in the Iraq leader.

Posted by: jlw at August 22, 2007 8:32 PM
Comment #230350

What does this have to do with Iraq,JD.You have to come a lot stronger than that,JD.

Posted by: the libertine at August 22, 2007 8:37 PM
Comment #230352

Bush also said,if we leave Iraq.This wife will cut off his junk,and fry it in a pan.

Posted by: the libertine at August 22, 2007 8:48 PM
Comment #230356

Astute observation. Looks like Al-Maliki was talking about friendship with Syria and/or Iran. If he moves to change that oil law favoring US companies I will be expecting a coup ala the CIA like Diem’s.Lets see.

Posted by: BillS at August 22, 2007 9:28 PM
Comment #230361

I think my point was obvious. Bush had nothing to do with the burning of this little boy. But, it is typical of the left to cast blame on everyone else besides the perpetrators.
It is an awful long stretch to accuse the United States of causing the actions of these murderous, and at times arsonist, thugs. The mere fact that they would do something so heinous should give rise to some concern that this could just as well have been one of our children as they were walking home from school or playing in the park.
But, typical of the left to show pictures of a burned child and equate this with the ideology of G.W. Bush. Then, in the next paragraph, claiming that our military taught them how to do this kind of stuff.
Go ahead and keep spouting that kind of nonsense. But, don’t limit it to the political blogs! How about you put the child’s face up on the big screen at the Democratic National Convention, and have Jack Murtha give a “Look What We Did” speech on National TV, directed at Bush and our guys in uniform. That should play really well with the majority of Americans. I’m looking forward to it! While Murtha’s at it he might want to accuse Bush of supplying these thugs with the gasoline they used to set the kid on fire. After all, Bush is a “Big Oil Man”!


Posted by: JD at August 22, 2007 10:53 PM
Comment #230364

Rhinehold, you can’t be serious quoting KGB from the Communist era to support your illogical argument. Man, that is reaching to the bottom of the barrel. Do you not recognize that Putin has his own political agenda in Iraq which making such an unsubstantiated claim might serve?

Try a credible source next time. Putin wants the Arctic Floor, would you believe him if he said Bush is doing a responsible job of fighting global warming? My, my. If its true, let him produce the communique transcript. Ooops! National security, you know!! No can do. Thanks for the laugh, this really was a humorous source.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 22, 2007 11:46 PM
Comment #230367

Ok, I’ll bite David, what agenda would be served by Putin making this statement in 2004? Last I remember, Russia was opposed to the invasion and says that the US overstepped it’s bounds.

I’m curious how it helps him at all, please help me with the logic.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 23, 2007 12:21 AM
Comment #230368

For those that never saw it…

“I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received … information that official organs of Saddam’s regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations,” Putin said.

He said the information was given to U.S. intelligence officers and that U.S. President George W. Bush expressed his gratitude to a top Russian intelligence official.

“This information was indeed passed on through our partner channels to our American colleagues and, moreover, President Bush had an opportunity and used this opportunity to personally thank the leader of one of the Russian special services for this information, which he considered to be very important,” Putin said.

Putin made his comments in response to a question from reporters seeking clarification on similar statements leaked by an unnamed intelligence officer in a dispatch by the Interfax news agency.

Russia opposed the invasion of Iraq and Putin said Friday the information did not effect its stance on the war.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 23, 2007 12:26 AM
Comment #230374

Rhinehold said: “[Saddam Hussein] had the desire, he had the will and he had the means. (to attack the U.S. homeland).

NO. Absolutely wrong Rhinehold. First he had no desire because he absolutely knew that doing so would be the end of him and his regime. Saddam Hussein has made references to WWII, which means he is well aware of what happens to those who attack the U.S. on their home territory.

Hence, he had NEITHER the will nor the desire, anymore than he had the will or desire to commit suicide.

As for means, he DID not have military reach across the Atlantic Ocean. Look it up. Do your homework. This was known well before the 2003 invasion.

As for Putin, I am not a mind reader and will not fall into your trap of asking me to read his mind. But, to counter, all I have to do is point out that he was KGB before becoming President. Which means he was well trained in ruses, motives withing motives and feints with feints. It was part and parcel of KGB training.

Bush was slamming Putin pretty hard over Chechnya and the NATO missile defense system in Europe was never going to be acceptable to Putin. But for intelligent strategists, which Bush isn’t, but Putin is, wisdoms like befriending an adversary to draw in their confidence can pay valuable strategic advantages, are part and parcel of their weaponry. There is another one Bush never learned either, You catch more bees with honey than with a fly swatter.

All potential motivations for Putin’s remarks. Russia is still an American competitor in space, for the moon, for the potential Arctic OIL reserves, and for negotiations on the European Defense Missile Shield. All excellent reasons to make uncorroborated remarks designed to appeal to the needs of Pres. Bush about justifying his invasion of Iraq. A ruse very possibly. Strategic, damned right. It had already leaked by and unidentified agent. Either the agent was directed to leak it for ruse or honey purposes or, claiming it was the best defense and strategy especially if the agent’s leak was NOT true.

You left out the very paragraphs that lends credence to what I have said.

The BBC’s Steve Rosenberg in Moscow says Mr Putin’s remarks are a surprise - considering his vocal opposition to the US-led war in Iraq. But they will come as a relief to President Bush, following the bi-partisan commission’s report saying it had found no credible evidence of a collaboration between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

Surprise, windfall, act of a friend and fellow leader in the world, there are many ways to describe Putin’s uncorroborated remarks, and all would draw Bush closer to Putin and oblige Bush to reciprocate, especially if Bush could confirm with our Intelligence sources that the remarks were not true. This is world strategic and tactical politics Rhinehold. It is not wise to take such actions at face value, especially when they are surprising and appear to contradict self-interest.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 23, 2007 2:46 AM
Comment #230386
NO. Absolutely wrong Rhinehold. First he had no desire because he absolutely knew that doing so would be the end of him and his regime. Saddam Hussein has made references to WWII, which means he is well aware of what happens to those who attack the U.S. on their home territory

Then explain why he would attempt to assassinate George Bush I? That seems to run counter to your assertion that he did not want to attack the US. Or his shooting at US and UK planes? That would seem to run counter too. In fact, it seems to ME that he had a lot of desire, especially if he could do it through a terrorist group to keep his name out of it. That would be an extra bonus. Sorry, David, but the facts just do not hold up your assertions.

As for means, he DID not have military reach across the Atlantic Ocean. Look it up. Do your homework. This was known well before the 2003 invasion

No, but he DID have TERRORIST reach across the Atlantic, and so did other terrorist groups, which is what 9/11 showed us. We were sitting happily thinking that if a country or group wanted to attack the US they couldn’t because they didn’t have the military means. Well, they don’t NEED to anymore, you see. They just need a couple of guys and some WMD. Which it was suspected by just about everyone that he did, becasue of how he attempted to thwart the inspection process.

So, all Iraq has to do to attack the US:

Contact one of his terrorist group contacts.
Tell them that he has some ‘oil for food’ money that he will funnel to them.
Tell them that he wants them to attack the US by having an agent mail out Anthrax through the postal service to various people.
Sit back and watching Americans die and become more paranoid.

Does that need a ‘military presence’ all of a sudden?

As for Putin, David, what happened to Occam’s Razor? Why is it not possible that most logical explanation, that it was discovered that there were intelligence reports that Iraq had intended to attack the US (possibly the reports were faulty, possibly not, we don’t know)? Why inject the ‘there must be another explanation, I know, Putin is a former KGB so he must automatically be lying about everything’ conspiracy theory?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 23, 2007 10:43 AM
Comment #230419

The objective of the Islamic terrorists is to overthrow every secular government in every muslim country, including Saddam’s Iraq. There next objective would be to unite all of those countries into one great Islamic state then wage war to create a World united under their version of Gods law.

The main problem that the terrorists have is that they are few in numbers. They can’t raise a vast army to wipe the sands clean of infidals. The Jihadists, unable to convince the people to rise up and follow them ( a fact that may be changing due to the infinite wisdom of George Bush) have resorted to terrorists acts as the only means of acheiving their objectives.

Needless to say, the secular Muslim governments and the rest of the World don’t like the terrorists plans one bit. The sixty four trillion dollar question is how do you counteract the Jihadists?

In my opinion, after WWII, the United States adopted the British attitude of contempt for the Muslim people and many things that we have done has strengthened the hand of Jihad.

The United States has never had and may never again have the golden opportunity to strike a blow against the Jihadist that we had in Afganistan. But again, George Bush and his infinite wisdom decided to strengthen the hand of the Jihadists by invading Iraq and letting it fall into chaos.

Posted by: jlw at August 23, 2007 1:10 PM
Comment #230439

Rhinehold said: “Then explain why he would attempt to assassinate George Bush I? That seems to run counter to your assertion that he did not want to attack the US.”

Answer: Because GB1 was going to be in Saddam’s BACKYARD, not in the United States, after demonizing Saddam Hussein. C’mon, that should be obvious. What did we do to Russian ships moving to Cuba, our Backyard? The assassination plans were designed for Bush’s visit to the Middle Eastern region, not against Bush in Wa. D.C. The U.S. made plans in abundance for assassinating many leaders in the world, over the last 55 years, and we even tried carrying them out a time or two.

Plans to assassinate foreign leaders is not exactly a new function of state invented by Saddam Hussein. It dates back at least 4,500 years if Egyptian records are interpreted accurately.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 23, 2007 3:11 PM
Comment #230441

Rhinehold, get a grip! Occam’s Razor is applicable to scientific explanation of physics, empirical redundancy and validation in an open and non-secretive environment is the governing principle. Occam’s Razor has no validity in the realm of politics where deception and hidden strategy and tactics and secrecy are often the order of operations.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 23, 2007 3:16 PM
Comment #230443

Rhinehold said: “No, but [Saddam] DID have TERRORIST reach across the Atlantic”

Sorry, Rhinehold, but it was al-Queda that reached across the Atlantic, not Saddam Hussein. Are you reading Bush’s revised history of 9/11 with credence? He just revised it again, yesterday, saying American demonstators during the Viet Nam war were the cause of 9/11. You going to buy that one too?

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 23, 2007 3:19 PM
Comment #230449

So, was Clinton, Clarke, Berger, Pickering et al lying when they bombed Al Shifa for being a combined effort of Al Qaeda and Iraq for creating VX? They still to this day say that they were right in doing so. And the 9/11 report agrees with them, and also agrees that there were links between al Qaeda and Iraq when they had common goals, such as Al Shifa…

Please help me here, Why wouldn’t Hussein use international terrorists to attack the US if he could get away with it? And how do you know they WEREN’T behind the Anthrax letters in 2001?

From Richard O. Spertzel in 2007

I have believed all along that Iraqi intelligence had their dirty hands on this event. Based on ISG findings that Iraq had apparently decided in 1994 to not attempt production, but rather only research to enhance “break-out” capability and that the Iraqi and Syrian intelligence services had formed an alliance to develop the field “in chemical and biological of mutual interest,” I now suspect that Syria made the anthrax product with Iraqi Intelligence assistance. The cooperation included Iraqi scientists assisting the Syrians.
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 23, 2007 3:43 PM
Comment #230450
Sorry, Rhinehold, but it was al-Queda that reached across the Atlantic, not Saddam Hussein.

Yes, and all Hussein had to do was fund or assist a group like al Qaeda to attack us again. Why is that so hard to understand that after 9/11 Hussein now could see a clear way to attack the US and get away with it, if he wanted to. Which made him less ‘contained’ than we thought. Which made him more dangerous than we thought, and which meant that after Hussein breached that last UN Chapter 7 resolution it was time to put that question to bed.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 23, 2007 3:46 PM
Comment #231063

Rhinehold- Would you say your above post is a fact
or an assumption?

Posted by: -DAVID- at August 30, 2007 5:22 AM
Post a comment