August 22, 2005
If the President lied to get us into Iraq, what was his true motive?
Let’s look at a couple of the common accusations.
Get oil - Do the math. Iraq produced about $20 billion of oil revenue a year. Bush has a Harvard MBA and he is not dumb ( his grades were slightly better than John Kerry's) so he understands the concept of breaking even. How many years of Iraqi oil would it take to break even? Besides, Saddam was willing to sell as much as we would let him pump at below world market prices. A lot of people were making money on Saddam. We could have too,if that was our concern.
Make his friends rich - You should have bought Halliburton back five years ago. Of course if you did, you would not have made much money. Halliburton stock was not remarkable during the Bush Presidency. (Look at the five year and maximum tab to see the long trends)They would have been better off in Norway or Brazil. Or maybe just buy Google or some local real estate. I guess that the Bush guys hide money so well not even they can find it.
Finish his father's work. Maybe it was wrong for the elder Bush to not to finish Saddam, but at the time it looked like a wise decision. If GW decided that his father had done the wrong thing and that he would correct it, well dealing with a security threat is a valid presidential decision.
There just is no nefarious motivation for Bush to lie. Only if he truly believed Saddam was a great threat, but he couldn't convince others, would he have reason and he would be doing what Roosevelt did in 1940. So what happened?
Consider how Bush probably made his decision. He no doubt depended on risk management tools developed for such situations. Each outcome has a probability and there is a string of probable outcomes. The idea is to minimize the maximum risk. I admit that I don't understand this crap. I bet a few of you do, but a generalist such as George Bush almost certainly does not - and should not. There are good reasons why we don't just let the smartest math wizard make all the decisions. If you can understand such details, you are not a leader. Leaders lead. They rely on professionals to give him options then make a decision from among them.
Okay, you are the President. 9/11 showed that seemingly remote dangers can have real consequences. UN sanctions had killed 567,000 children by the mid 1990s. Their figures are exaggerated in both cases, but the ratio looks like peace was five times as deadly as war) , the U.S. and to American friends such as Turkey and Jordan, and you know that they are subverting them. You also know something of the corruption of the oil for food program. So sanctions are painful to almost everybody except Saddam himself. He will wait them out.
That same intelligence that tells you Saddam didn't have an operational link with 9/11 tells you that he possesses WMD and that he is trying to upgrade. You have no reason to doubt their analysis. Your predecessor didn't. Bill Clinton, made regime change in Iraq a U.S. policy. We don't have such an explicit policy for any other country. What do you do, Mr. or Ms. President?
Well, BEFORE any other adventures were undertaken, the fight in Afganistan should have been finished. Does anybody notice that the insurgency is heating up there? Looks like they are learning to use car bombs and IED’s, as shown in the past week.
Also, not 1(one) 9-11 hijacker was from Iraq. Not one. But 15 were from Saudi. hmmmm….
The main frustration is the list of reasons given AFTER the WMD excuse was proven false and his lack of accountability.
In an interview pre 9-11, Bush stated that Harry S. Truman was an influence. Truman said “the buck stops here”, Bush says “that buck was given to me by the CIA doing their guesswork”
Posted by: MyPetGoat at August 22, 2005 03:45 AM“Bush says “that buck was given to me by the CIA doing their guesswork”“
Can you tell me where you got this quote from President Bush? I don’t remember seeing or hearing it.
“Well, BEFORE any other adventures were undertaken, the fight in Afganistan should have been finished.”
That’s YOUR opinion. Mine is the opposite of yours. Is your opinion any more valid than mine?
Shortly before we went into Iraq there was talk of lifting the UN sanctions,and France and Germany were dropping huge amounts of cash for the oil contracts when they were lifted. We could not allow Saddam to sell his oil on the open market or lose France and Germany as customers.Oil prices would plummet and on it’s face sounds like a good thing it really isn’t.
I work in the oil industry so I have some knowledge as to what goes on. The oil market is very fragile and all the companies work together to control production which determines price. If oil prices were drastically lowered by Iraq just dumping oil on the market at cheap prices it would send the whole system in a tailspin. Someone with that much oil and an axe to grind with the world could cause massive economic damage and get incredibly rich doing so.
We would take a huge economic hit in our oil production regions and the ripple effect would be felt widely.
Sure we went there for oil but not to take it, to make sure it’s production stays in control. And yes at the end of the day it is all about greed and money, but also economic stabilty. Our oil companies do suck, but they are here to stay and if someone is going to win the prize in Iraq it might as well be us.
I still maintain the invasion of Iraq was a wise decision. The PRIMARY reason being US political and economic stability. Staying there, however, was never a viable option. We should have withdrawn to our bases and let the Iraqis decide on a new government even if it meant one strongly influenced by Iranian intervention. Its not the invasion that has be puzzled. But why are we still there? If the Iraqis will decide on a fundamentalist Islamic regime in any case, what could possibly be the benefit. Some decisions were made that simply don’t make any sense to me. Dismantling the Iraqi army being one of these ill-advised policies. I would appreciate it if someone can give me an argument for remaining militarially involved so I can reasonably argue this issue with the liberals. Mr. President? Don’t you have a better reason than that it keeps the terrorists off our soil?
Posted by: weewillie94 at August 22, 2005 06:56 AMClinton made regime change, not pre-emptive invasion, the policy of his government. Regime change can be acheived by intelligence operations, diplomacy, and the encouragement of internal rebellion.
He did so in response to a long series of thwartings of UN resolution, and went through the UN on the process. He didn’t use the pretext of the threat of terrorists getting WMDs from Saddam to compel Americans to support and invasion of Iraq. What Clinton’s policy asked for in terms of action, and in terms of motivation is different from what Bush’s policy does now.
As for risk management, you can’t use an equation to do that in the real world. There are too many variables, and not enough clear and clean knowledge of things. It’s an abstraction at best.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 22, 2005 07:31 AMThere just is no nefarious motivation for Bush to lie. Only if he truly believed Saddam was a great threat, but he couldn’t convince others…
Wow, Jack. that must have been really frustrating for President Bush to see this great threat, and nobody else - not the Brits, the Russians, the French, the Germans, the Arabs, the Africans, the Asians, even the State Department and the CIA - could see it. That’s just horror-movie creepy.
Oh wait. By March 2003, UN inspectors had been crawling all over Iraq, the IAEA had cleared them of a nuclear program, UNMOVIC was weeks from clearing them of a bio-chem program, and even the CIA was disputing VP Cheney’s assertions of terrorist connections. There never was a threat.
Frankly, I don’t ascribe any nefarious motives to Preident Bush. I just think he and his advisors displayed some criminally bad judgement by presenting guesses and the uncorroborated word of single-source informants as fact.
Cheney told us, “Without a doubt, Saddam Hussein has reconstituted his nuclear weapons program.” But there was plenty of doubt and dissent. The administration was looking at intelligence that was full of dissenting opinion and caveats, yet presented it to Congress and the American people as fact - stripped of any uncertainty.
The definition of lie is to knowingly mislead. We were knowingly mislead by President Bush.
would he have reason and he would be doing what Roosevelt did in 1940.
Ouch, Jack. You’re a better historian than that. I know you mean he did what the Japanese did to the United States in 1941. It’s called a preventative war, and it’s illegal under international agreements to which the US is a signatory.
Posted by: American Pundit at August 22, 2005 07:41 AMBTW, there was a CNN special on the other night that put all this together in one place, “Dead Wrong: Inside and Intelligence Meltdown”.
Even as someone who is familiar with all that happened, to see it all put together on video - including interviews with top administration officials who now wish they had never been involved - is pretty devastating.
Posted by: American Pundit at August 22, 2005 07:45 AMFor all this talk about Iraq being a “good decision”, I still see no mobs of Republicans rushing to volunteer.
I am aware that I keep saying it but it is a valid argument. One the Right avoids to answer.
If Iraq is such a good war, why can’t 61,000,000 Bush Voters get 50,000 of their number to volunteer?
Posted by: Aldous at August 22, 2005 08:24 AMCONTINUING EARLIER THREAD
More like the dealer has flushed the stash down the toilet, but has the capacity to get more as soon as you leave … and has done things like that recently.Let’s move to this subject on a different thread.
OK, so the police bust down Jack’s door, but there are no drugs. This is just a “technicality” though, because he could have flushed him down the toilet. And he could easily go to the neighborhood drug store and get the ingredients to make meth. Jack is a smart guy with the ability to do all sorts of nefarious things. Clearly, the only way to protect the neighborhood is to lock him up. Even 24 armed guards outside his door won’t do it.
Of course you don’t wear the uniform of any recognized army (as far as I know), so who knows what they are going to do to you…
Ok, this still doesn’t cover the prior violations part (at least I am fairly certain it doesn’t). But the point is that once you are ready to dismiss an “absence of evidence”, you are verging on Alice in Wonderland territory.
(Note to latecomers: Jack got us on the law enforcement track, not me, so don’t say, “There goes another liberal…”)
Posted by: Woody Mena at August 22, 2005 08:37 AMOops make that “24 hour armed guards”
Posted by: Woody Mena at August 22, 2005 08:39 AMAldous:
For all this talk about Iraq being a “good decision”, I still see no mobs of Republicans rushing to volunteer.I am aware that I keep saying it but it is a valid argument. One the Right avoids to answer.
If Iraq is such a good war, why can’t 61,000,000 Bush Voters get 50,000 of their number to volunteer?
Yep. You just keep saying it. People keep ignoring it. And you keep breaking your word. Why is it Democrats/Liberals, like you, can’t keep their word? This is a question I keep asking, Aldous, and you keep avoiding the answer.
Your statement has no merit. Your statements are tedious. Your statements go against your word. Stop the immature posts and find something intelligent to say.
Posted by: Chi Chi at August 22, 2005 09:32 AMOh, this oil crap is silly. Saddam wanted to flood the market w/ oil in 90, remember? Probably not. OPEC wouldn’t let him. That was the resaon he invaded Kuwait in the first place. He wanted to pump more oil to get out from under his Iran/Iraq war debt. You see what happened. Every Arab country turned against him. If Saddam had tried to flood the market w/ oil again, the same thing would have happened again. Hey, it would have made the war easier. OPEC could have still corresponded by lowering output elsewhere and raising price per barrel. The only one who ever made the war about oil was Saddam, not us.
Posted by: Brian at August 22, 2005 10:27 AMAP
would he have reason and he would be doing what Roosevelt did in 1940.
Ouch, Jack. You’re a better historian than that. I know you mean he did what the Japanese did to the United States in 1941. It’s called a preventative war, and it’s illegal under international agreements to which the US is a signatory.
I was thinking of Roosevelt’s support for the Brits in 1940. His deceptive and illegal action may have saved the world from Fascism (thank God for Roosevelt and Churchill), but I would hate to have to defend his actions in front of a committee or in a hostile media.
Get oil - Do the math. Iraq produced about $20 billion of oil revenue a year. Bush has a Harvard MBA and he is not dumb ( his grades were slightly better than John Kerry’s) so he understands the concept of breaking even.
I guess you can opine that Bush is not dumb, but apparently in the same breath you are calling Wolfowitz and Cheney dumb, since they both indicated that Iraq’s oil revenues would pay for the reconstruction. Of course, they said this in the course of selling this war, which is kind of the problem in the first place, right? Selling a crappy war.
Posted by: Burt at August 22, 2005 10:50 AMBush may have made some tactical errors, that much is very possible. But like it or not, weapons of mass destruction is a red herring. Many of the reasons the Bush administration had for going to war were not necessarily because of Iraq’s military threat. I agree with the original post and the one from the guy in the oil business when they said the US had to maintain economical stability. The results of Sadaam’s underhanded schemes would have been disatrous. And everyone knows he was just waiting to wreak more destruction upon other Muslim sects when he thinks no one else is looking.
The only thing that concerns me about GW’s policies are when it comes to the Saudi’s. They are just as evil as Sadaam. We should be bombing the hell out of them. Or at least removing the royal family from power. At least that would be consistent. And what about the Sudan? Where was America then? And the tsunami? We gave them peanuts for aid. What about North Korea? And Iran? We are not giving these issues enough attention. Oh, and don’t forget China, in a couple decades they could be more powerful than us! (think about it, growing population + new technology + increasing wealth = a powerful country)
Posted by: phozzzy at August 22, 2005 11:29 AMCan one of the supporters of the war please state clearly and succinctly why we attacked Iraq in the Spring of 2003?
Please don’t use words like “threat” and “terrorism” without specifics.
Posted by: steve at August 22, 2005 11:59 AMweewillie states: “I still maintain the invasion of Iraq was a wise decision. The PRIMARY reason being US political and economic stability.”
Interesting viewpoint. Can you back it up? How has this country benefitted politically and/or economically from this war?
In the words of Ricky Ricardo, methinks you’ve got some ‘splainin to do.
Posted by: Mister Magoo at August 22, 2005 12:26 PMMy take on Bush’s reasons for war are this:
He is heavily influenced by the Neo-Cons like Wolfowitz and Bremer, etc. These guys, as far as I can tell, let their visions of Israel and the Middle East guide their ideology. I believe they are hawks who honestly believed that in order to secure the Middle East long term (and therefore Israel) they needed to prop up a Democracy and let the Domino Theory take over.
It’s a nice vision in theory, but perhaps not wholly practical at this point in time.
I believe the other side of this ideology is the Bush/Cheney faction that wants to profiteer in the Middle East through Oil and Defense contracts.
There is a not-so-widely-known concept of “Peak Oil,” of which I admittedly know little. But from what I understand, we are at a point in time in which the natural supplies of oil will only become more scarce. Strategically, it would be very important in theory to make a major oil grab in the Middle East if we are looking at the interests of American Oil.
Thus, I believe the Bush administration was planning to go after Iraq from Day One for three basic reasons:
(1) Oil Grab and help out American Oil companies
(2) Spread Democracy in Middle East
(3) Pick a fight, make Bush a “wartime” President, and ensure re-election in 2004.
The only honorable reason for war is #2. I believe this is the reason they tell themselves at night to go to bed with a clear conscience, even though I’d bet the other reasons were really first and foremost in their minds.
I’m not sure I would say Bush is villainous and nefarious like other Lefties might. I really, truly, honestly believe that his administration is human, and humans have a tendency to abuse their power when left unchecked. It is as much the fault of spineless Democrats in congress, the do-nothing MSM, and the uninformed public that have allowed this policy to push forward. 9-11 is also to blame, as it clouded the logic and rationale of the public.
I’m personally sick of pointing fingers. There are very real, human reasons that we’ve gotten into this mess. I just want some accountability and someone to dig us out of it already.
Is that too much to ask?
Posted by: Andrew L. at August 22, 2005 12:32 PMtomd:
Actually Bush DID, at a news conference, say that the CIA was doing guesswork
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/235228p-202037c.html
typical, cherrypicking the news you want to hear
This culture of life is creating death at a breakneck speed. 1800 lives voids your opposite opinion. please enlist to help with the effort. I already have, and am now out on medical for a blown knee.
Posted by: MyPetGoat at August 22, 2005 12:45 PMClearly, because you cannot discern a motive for Bush’s crimes, means no crime was committed. No motive means no body? Brilliant. At least while logic jumping, you’re getting exercise. Wheeeeee! Of everything that has leaked showing the manipulation of the war evidence, you’ve still got your fingers in your ears. What would your mother say?
Posted by: Sarah Cynthia Sylvia Stout at August 22, 2005 05:57 PMJack
George W. is dumb. You know that you can’t use grades to determine whether someone is smart or not. Many of the smartest people I know screwed up their grades in college, but when I talk to them I can tell they are very smart.
When you hear W. speak unscripted about policy, he sounds like a small kid who was in the room when the grownups were talking and is trying to repeat the poorly understood ideas he heard. He mangles the terms and can’t really argue cogently about the very policies he pursues. I don’t doubt for a minute the intelligence of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, and Condoleeza Rice, although I do question their integrity. The administration as a whole has many intelligent individuals (especially those that draft speeches), but its policies are wreaking havoc on the nation and the world. I trust that many who support W. believe in the goals he publicly espouses, but I don’t trust this group to accurately convey their true goals.
I, too, would like to make the Middle East over into a home for enlightened, liberal democracies. I just know that taking a country by force and occupying it for years is extremely unlikely to accomplish that goal, and may work very well against that goal. I fear that what will be left in Saddam’s place is a government equally abusive of its citizens without the accompanying attempts to modernize its schools and infrastructure, with a dollop of fundamentalist Islam thrown in for good measure. These concerns were dismissed out of hand by the smart guys (and W. nodded his profoundly shallow agreement), and this gave me no confidence that they knew what they were doing. They took no measures to counteract the likely negative effects, didn’t even consider the middle and end games. Intelligence doesn’t necessarily bring with it good intentions or even the ability to see the larger reality if it is clouded by ideology.
Posted by: Mental Wimp at August 22, 2005 05:59 PMMyPetGoat,
You said “Well, BEFORE any other adventures were undertaken, the fight in Afganistan should have been finished.” I said it was your opinion and I totally disagree with you. You replied that 1800 lives void my opinion. JUST WHO IN THE HELL ARE YOU TO TRY AND VOID MY OPINION?
You quoted President Bush as follows ” Bush says “that buck was given to me by the CIA doing their guesswork”” and I asked “Can you tell me where you got this quote from President Bush? I don’t remember seeing or hearing it.” I checked your nydaily site and couldn’t find the story. It doesn’t sound too much like President Bush to me, I’d sure like to see the source.
and finely you said “please enlist to help with the effort. I already have, and am now out on medical for a blown knee.” and I’ll respond as follows:
In 1969 I was known as
James T. Dobson
US53452440
S/Sgt US Army
173rd Airborn Bge
Infantry
Citations as per my DD-214 include a Combat Infantrymans Badge, Paratroop wings, Bronze Star for Meritorious service and an Army Commendation medal with “V” device for valor. I arrived in Vietnam a month after the infamous “Tet Offensive”
I’ve paid my dues.
Posted by: tomd at August 22, 2005 06:53 PMFor all this talk about Iraq being a “good decision”, I still see no mobs of Republicans rushing to volunteer.
I am aware that I keep saying it but it is a valid argument. One the Right avoids to answer.
If Iraq is such a good war, why can’t 61,000,000 Bush Voters get 50,000 of their number to volunteer?
Posted by: Aldous at August 22, 2005 08:24 AM
You made a promise and broke it. How do you expect anyone to respect your opion, or you for that matter, if you cann’t keep ypur word?
tomd
If I haven’t told you before, Thanks for your service to our country.
Your right, you’ve paid your dues.
On the “WMD” issue:
1. Let us not forget that the Iraqui Government itself claimed the posession of “WMD” in reports to the United Nations.They were allowed to have a small amount. They also used these weapons against their own population, more than once.
2. Iraq continiously declared war on the United States by firing on American airplanes. This was in direct violation of instruments of surrender that they signed.
3. Not one country with their various intelligence networks denied any of the charges made at the United Nations by the United States. Please keep in mind that both France and Russia had veto power on the United Nations resolution that “allowed” us to use military force. They chose not to use it. I would suppose that if their intelligence arms could have raised ANY possibility that Iraq did not posess “WMD” they would have not only confronted the United States, but they would have vetoed the resolution.
If anyone can can argue that these conditions do not constitute a threat, I would like to see it.
It boggles my mind that we took years to ratify a constitution, but are upset if Iraq cant do it in 6 months(please keep in mind that they are a far more diverse in ethnic voting blocks).
The other thing that I cant figure out is why the American “intestinal fortitude” level is so low, especially on the left.
To qualify that statement , I will say this: We lost more people in Germany and Japan in the years following WWII. We lost more than that in the 50…thats FIFTY plus years just being prepared to fight the Soviet Union. Folks get some perspective on this, WE WON THIS WAR. The so called “insurgency” is a misnomer. The people blowing themselves up are by a vast majority people from other countries that dont have a real standing in this country taking shape.
To make the left really mad, lets pose this question,” Are the Iraquis better off now than they were 4 years ago?” If the answer is yes, and if you cannot dispute my first three points on “WMD”, can you dispute that the war was just?
Then the final questions are simple:
1. Who are the detractors of the war helping?(It is the same scenario as Fonda in Hanoi)?
2. Is getting back at President Bush for being popularly elected worth the outcome?
These are just some thoughts from a man that spent a few years under a command of another “cowboy” that was radical and dangerous and willing to confront evil in our time. By the way, “The Wall Did Come Tumbling Down” and a cold war ended because of his leadership. Our President now is showing the same. So are the troops. Where then is the weak spot?
Thanks for hearing me out.
“Please keep in mind that both France and Russia had veto power on the United Nations resolution that “allowed” us to use military force.”
Interesting that you put allowed in quotes. What resolution are you talking about? You mean the one we interpreted to our own ends?
Posted by: womanmarine at August 22, 2005 08:01 PMWomanmarine:
First of all, thanks for the service.
I do not have the resolution number on my desk; however, I can look it up if you want. I will assume that we are talking about the same resolution that “authorized” the use of force against Iraq.
It amazes me that people all of a suddon think that we have ceded the right to declare war to the United Nations. If the United States Marines were fired on, Do we have to get the United Nations blessing before we fire back? Again I state that American airplanes were attacked by Iraq, and that is pure and simply an act of war.
To me it is interesting that anyone thinks the United Nations has authority of our ability to declare war.
Posted by: submarinesforever at August 22, 2005 08:19 PMI was watching CNN Presents last night and they had a feature on how the country was taken to war under dubious circumstances.It occured to me that the president did not not lie to the American people.Rather,he was lied to by the people around him (the Jewish Cabal comes to mind) and he probably chose to ignore facts and instead opted to sleep the slumber of the strong because the temptation of a quick military victory was just too strong to resist.
It also occured to me that George Tenet chose to take the fall for the intelligence disasters not because he was wrong but because he had no choice.And that Gen Frankie Franks took the blame for the Mission Accomplished banner not because he asked for it to be put there but because it would shift the attention from the president to him.Thats what loyality is all about.Thats what good soldiers do.They take the bullet for the boss.
It also made me wonder: who is the now infamous source Curveball who provided the most compelling arguments for WMD in Iraq?Is Curveball and Ahmed Chalabi one and the same? If he is why did the US allow him to join the Iraqi govt? Hmmm…to keep him quiet maybe?
John Doe:
To think that someone sitting at a desk decided to lie to the President to bring America to war and sacrifice the lives of our best, brightest and most selfless citizens is absurd. The same “oil grab” arguement was made in 1990 about the first Gulf War. Would it not stand to reason that IF we had wanted control of the Iraqui oil fields, we would have kept it in 1991?
Let me try this scenario on you and see who is probably correct:
An intelligence officier is sitting at his desk, charged with determing what Sadaam’s intent and capabilities are. He has no “on the ground” spies in Iraq, because congress slashed the CIA’s budget by over 40% in 10 years. He is also hamstrung by the fact that he cant legally communicate with field officiers of the FBI or law enforcement personnel due again to the wisdom of congress. America has already lost 3000+ in a savage attack by terrorists. Not one nation, or credible organization can refute evidence that Sadaam has “WMD”. Sadaam has declared a small stockpile of “legal” WMD.
Which way do you call it? Which side would you rather err on?
Now you are the President. Again the evidence points that Sadaam is stockpiling “WMD”. America has been attacked and 3000+ citizens were killed. Not one person/country/news org/intelligence agency will stand up and say,” Sadaam is peaceful and is not stockpiling WMD and is not hostile to the United States”.
Over the last decade America has been attacked no less than 8 times. The former President tried to treat the hostile acts as crimes, not as an act of war. This led directly to the loss of American lives and further, more aggressive and deadly attacks. Which side do you err?
Do you think that your theory or mine is closer to fact? NO ONE stood in front of the world before the Iraqui war. Why not? Is it just easier to play “Monday morning quarterback”? If that is the case, what is your belief system? Where were you in this debate BEFORE the war?
Posted by: submarinesforever at August 22, 2005 09:17 PMtomd:
Touchy touchy, I’ll try to be a little more sensitive this time, geez…….
When I stated earlier that the conflict in Afghanistan should have been finished first is, yes, an opinion that is based on this question, WHY THE HELL ARE OUR TROOPS STILL GETTING KILLED THERE? Harmed Karzai has little control outside Kabul, the Taliban is regrouping, and we have little presence there to support our new puppet.
Matter of fact, we don’t have that much of a presence in Iraq either. We didn’t even start this right, it was like a being a mosquito when we should have been a hornet. The Generals tried to convince Bush, but he knew better than they did that this was going to be a cakewalk in Iraq. Did I mention opium production?
It’s not an opinion that soldiers are still getting injured in killed in Afghanistan. The insurgents there have learned from Iraq how to fight us effectively. With car bombs and IED’s. This just started and it is just going to get worse. I’m sorry, but rose colored glasses will never win a war, they only start them.
Impressive honors though, good job.
Posted by: MyPetGoat at August 22, 2005 09:22 PM
Where were you in this debate BEFORE the war?
Supported the President then - support him now.
Could not let the terrorists get their hands on the WMD.
Just wish the President would remember he has an Air Force and make some noise up northeast near Syria.
Posted by: g at August 22, 2005 09:55 PMSubmarine
You are barking up the wrong tree.No where did I say anything about oil.The basic premise of my piece is that the country was led to war based on a knee jerk reaction that blinded the administration to the facts.If I remember right the US refused to give the WMD inspectors time to finish their job( I suspect because it would have interfered with the victory timetable that was already predetermined) or take a vote to the Security Council with this overwhelming proof that we had.
You talk about evidence pointing to WMD in Iraq.Enlighten me please.Where was this evedence? Other than a few grainy satellite pictures that could have been taken in Arizona and a garbled intercepted conversation that made no sense.Or maybe the whispers of good ol’ Curveball who had nothing to lose and everything to gain?
Submarine,lets for a moment imagine that we dont know what we know now and me and you are sitting around a table the night before the war starts.Convince me that what we are about to do is right based the evidence you so casually sling around.
submarineforever,
If that is the case, what is your belief system? Where were you in this debate BEFORE the war?
I was arguing with anyone who would listen to me that anyone who thought that we would be greeted as liberators, or that thought that Saddam had al-queda connections, was insane. Unfortunately, I hadn’t discoverd blogs yet,so you’ll have to take my word for it. I changed from being a republican to independent because of the smear attacks agains McCain, and am now considering acual Democrat status based on the war and the attacks on anyone against it (my main reservation is the idiotic democratic congressmen who also voted for the war).
To make the left really mad, lets pose this question,” Are the Iraquis better off now than they were 4 years ago?” If the answer is yes, and if you cannot dispute my first three points on “WMD”, can you dispute that the war was just?
Whether the Iraqis are better of than they were 4 years ago is debateable, and has been debated multiple times. I think that misleading the American people makes it unjust.
I think my question is more important, however. Is America better off than we were before the war? If so, how? What is one benefit of this war to Americans? If you can’t answer that with some pretty convincing reasons, then I don’t care whether it was just or not, it was STUPID. Stupid, stupid, stupid. And how it has been managed has made it exponentially more stupid.
The war in Iraq is like charity. It’s wonderful that we’re helping the Iraqis set up the theocracy of their choosing (oh, wait, was that too sarcastic? let me try again). It’s wonderful that Saddam is gone, but it really only benefits them. You don’t give away Caddilacs when you’ve got three mortgages on the house. The war is costing us lives, it’s costing us money (and our children money, who will be paying for it for a long, long, time), and it’s distracting us from the fight that would actually benefit America. Really, if we have to go and give someone a nice democracy Christmas Present, why shouldn’t it be a country where Bin Laden is? Posted by: Brian Poole at August 22, 2005 11:04 PM
Can one of the supporters of the war please state clearly and succinctly why we attacked Iraq in the Spring of 2003?Please don’t use words like “threat” and “terrorism” without specifics.
The Case for Invading Iraq posted on November 1, 2004
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 23, 2005 01:28 AM“I’m sorry, but rose colored glasses will never win a war, they only start them.”
And misquoting the President won’t end a war either….”“that buck was given to me by the CIA doing their guesswork”…If this is not a misquote, provide a valid link and I will publicly apologise to you.
Mister Magoo:
Three US presidents saw the Saddam regime as a threat to US interests. Wasn’t he paying $24,000 to the families of suicide bombers in palestine? Didn’t he invade Kuwait? Didn’t he initiate a war with Iran? Even if there was no evidence of WMD’s when we got there, don’t you think, reasonably, that he was likely to procure them? I am very well aware of the fact that Saddam was our puppet initially. I also believe we sent him signals that we were at least indifferent to his invasion of Kuwait. It must of confused the heck out of him when we later challenged him on the issue. Be that as it may, he was responsible much of the instability in the Middle East … an instigator of atrocities against not only his neighbors, but his own people. We will eventually gain the support and appreciation of the majority of the Iraqi people for deposing him. I maintain even an stable Islamic Republic of Iraq will benefit the US and the world. I just don’t see our cause being furthered by our continued presence. It can only be deterimental in the long run financially and in terms of our young men’s lives. We were destined to clash with Iraq as long as we maintained an alliance with Israel and saw a stable Middle East in our best interests. Deposing supporters of (dare I say it?) terrorists is good foreign policy. We can do that very, very well. Nation building, however, is overstepping our bounds and makes us out to be Imperialistic bullies. Its bad P.R. and its usually bad foreign policy in my humble opinion.
Posted by: weewillie94 at August 23, 2005 06:39 AMI’ve been reading these posts and just have to jump in and say that this tribal factioned nation has been feuding with each other for 3,000 years. How in the world do we expect to institute a democracy (or any form of one) there. What makes us think that the people of Iraq even want a democracy? And, by the way, why aren’t we in the Sudan? There are plenty of terrorists training camps in Africa? there are horrioble dicatatorships who abuse thier power and kill thousands…genocide and ethnic cleansing thre does not get thr press or attention it deserves.
And also, we wanted to “save” these poor people from this horrible leader,well why doesn’t W. and the administration see any need to help the starving people in the interior of Africa?
Gail
Posted by: ggallo4 at August 23, 2005 07:36 AMsubs4ever, you need to get out of that tin can once in a while.
1. Let us not forget that the Iraqui Government itself claimed the posession of “WMD” in reports to the United Nations.
No. During the entire run-up to the war, Saddam denied having any WMD. Had he claimed he had a WMD program, this wouldn’t even be an issue.
2. Iraq continiously declared war on the United States by firing on American airplanes. This was in direct violation of instruments of surrender that they signed.
Sure. If President Bush had gone to war on those terms, his screw-up on WMD wouldn’t even be an issue. He still wouldn’t have gotten UN support, but he’d have still had the Brits and America’s credibility would still be intact. But that’s not the way Bush played it.
3. Not one country with their various intelligence networks denied any of the charges made at the United Nations by the United States.
They all did. It wasn’t Bush’s idea to send in the inspectors.
Please keep in mind that both France and Russia had veto power on the United Nations resolution that “allowed” us to use military force.
I’m assuming you mean 1441, which didn’t explicitly authorize the use of force. Everybody but President Bush - even Tony Blair - acknowledged that a second resolution was necessary. When Powell and Blair convinced Bush to go for the second resolution, nobody supported it because inspectors had been crawling all over Iraq for months and hadn’t found anything. By March 2003, nobody seriously though Saddam had WMD.
It boggles my mind that we took years to ratify a constitution, but are upset if Iraq cant do it in 6 months
That’s President Bush you’re talking about here. The rest of us would like to see Iraqis take as much time as they need to hammer out consensus between the different factions. If they could do it in a secure environment, that would be even better. President Bush is pushing these guys to cobble together a constitution ASAP “otherwise the terrorists have won.”
The other thing that I cant figure out is why the American “intestinal fortitude” level is so low, especially on the left.
I have no idea what you’re talking about here. There is one single Democrat calling for an immediate pull-out: Feingold. The rest are screaming for President Bush to send more troops.
The people blowing themselves up are by a vast majority people from other countries
That’s not true. Foreign fighters make up a very small percentage of the armed resistance. The ratio is estimated to be something like 1:50. So far, about 600 foreign fighters have been killed or captured, as opposed to 15,000 native Iraqi insurgents.
Hope that got you up to speed. Carry on.
I was thinking of Roosevelt’s support for the Brits in 1940. His deceptive and illegal action may have saved the world from Fascism (thank God for Roosevelt and Churchill), but I would hate to have to defend his actions in front of a committee or in a hostile media.
Jack, I assume you mean the 1940 destroyers for bases deal, and not the 1941 Lend-Lease Act. You’re absolutely right that Republicans would have blocked that deal if they could. Luckily, the War Dept. and the Navy Dept. were all overseen by Democratic majorities in Congress.
Of course that still leaves President Bush holding an illegal preventative war, which in no way resembles what Roosevelt did in 1940.
Posted by: American Pundit at August 23, 2005 08:27 AMweewillie:
Thanks for responding. I appreciate the points you make. Iraq will no doubt be the main legacy of this President — one which remain largely negative for many years to come, if not forever.
True, that “even a stable Islamic Republic of Iraq will benefit the US and the world, ” as you point out, but most agree it will not happen anytime soon. Yes, they are on the road to democracy, which is a good thing. But it is how we got them to this point, and all that has happened along the way, that the majority of Americans (including myself) disagree with.
I don’t want to beat the dead horse of no WMDs, the accusation of which prompted this nightmare. Still, it was either a massive failure of intelligence, or an administration bent on “fixing the facts around the policies” (or both) that DID get us into this mess. That said, I find it troubling that many out there now resort to the “Saddam was a bad guy, he killed his people, he had to be removed anyway” argument that just holds no water. Yes, Saddam probably did need to be removed — but we did not give diplomacy a full run before rushing to war. And rush to war we did. The ends don’t justify the means. If they did, we would have gotten rid of an even bigger monster — Kim Jong Il — a long time ago.
In your response, you also state that “The problem is Deposing supporters of (dare I say it?) terrorists is good foreign policy.” Yes it is. Providing we have a rock-solid plan supported by rock-solid intelligence. In Iraq, we had neither.
Posted by: Mister Magoo at August 23, 2005 09:21 AMI know that I’m ignorant and not as educated as most of you but it seems to me that many of you should just be deported. Now that I have your attention. I love this country. I love what this country was built on. I love that I have the freedoms that I do. We are the United States of America. Tho latley its more like the States of America. I don’t see the united part much anymore. We are very divided. That will be the end of US.
Posted by: redneck at August 23, 2005 10:53 AMtomd,
I have nothing but admiration and respect for you in service to our country.
I for one, Salute You.
Posted by: steve smith at August 23, 2005 11:21 AMtomd:
OMG, what I said was a mockery of what Bush DID say and what he would never say.
1. quote from Bush; “the CIA was just guessing”
2. what bush would never say; “the buck stops here.”
tomd,
thank you, Sgt. It wasn’t said enough then, and its not said enough now.
redneck,
amen, brother. I love this country, too. I served, by brother and sister served, my dad served, 2 uncles served…back to the start of this great country.
We have seemed to forget that we are taking the fight to them, fighting over there(with our fighting force) instead of fighting here(with our civilians).
BTW, anyone know what the murder count is in Washington DC since the start of the war and how it compares to Iraq? It might surprise you. That’s where the question of intestinal fortitude is coming from. Any death is tragic, but as far as war goes, this one is not very bloody.
My opinion:
Q. If the President lied to get us into Iraq, what was his true motive?
A. Personal revenge on Saddam for the attempted assassination of Bush I. Nothing more - nothing less.
All right, you’ve convinced me. He’s not a liar, he’s just very, very dumb.
Posted by: Skip at August 23, 2005 04:05 PMThere was a comment further up that said a surefire way to shut up a Democrat is to ask if the Iraqis are better off now than they were pre-war?
The answer is:
Negatives:
1) Electricity is worse
2) Less people have access to potable water and sewage services
3) More likely to get randomly blown up
4) More dangerous to go to school
5) No functioning infrastructure to dissemenate pharmaceuticals to hospitals, and therefore, you are dead if you are poor and get sick (most hospitals dont’ have basic antibiotics anymore)
6) Widespread looting of national budget with little to no oversight. It’s estimated that up to 65 cents of every dollar is going to graft.
7) Less civil rights for women
8) If you are not muslim, you’re more likely to be murdered (if you haven’t left already)
9) If you are educated and have money, you have a high chance of being kidnapped. Most doctors and teachers have had their lives threatened.
10) A vast number of of educated Iraqis have left the country. (Many have moved to Jordan for safety reasons)
11) Lack of infrastructure to authorize and repair electrical projects and procure electrical goods.
12) Lower oil output
13) More fuel rationing
Things that haven’t changed:
1) Put in prison without being told why, or being able to tell your family where you are.
2) Randomly abducted by the police in the middle of the night.
3) Using political power to make money and get access to better medical care (not by the Baathaists, but by SCIRI, and the other mafiosos running the cities)
4) Secret police run by shady organizations.
5) No protection from police torture.
6) Persecution of the minority by the government officials in power.
7) Secret murders carried out in the middle of the night.
8) Abusive and badly trained police.
9) Oil siphoning and black market oil sales.
10) Members of minority political parties randomly killed.
Positives:
1) More cell phone use
2) More internet access
3) more newspapers
4) Better income for the educated.
5) Basic physical repair to buildings.
6) Very elaborate and workable plans to repair the countries infrastucture.
7) Food system is still functional
8) Various repairs to the marshlands.
9) Potential for self-rule. (constitution, etc)
10) Potential for better police.
You need to ask yourself the question: Would you rather live in Basra under a murderous secularist like Saddam? Or would you rather live in Basra under a murderous religious militant organization like the Badr Brigade (of Sciri)? Would you rather live in Sadr city under Saddam, or under the religious militant (american murdering) Sadr organization?
Instead of one corrupt dictator, we have about 32 right now.
In charge of infrastructure development, we have fresh-faced college studenst hired by right wing think tanks (like the Heritage foundation), and political figures without a lot of real world experience in nation building, AND corporations who are overcharging (and honestly, I can’t tell what they’re doing)
The lack of organization IS surprising. I wrote to my congressman and asked him to explain to me what the hell was going on with the pharmaceutical procurement system in Iraq, and he doesn’t know. I contacted the #1 U.S. guy in charge in 2004 of organizing health for Iraq, and his response was basically “Things should improve at some point”. He gave me the name of one of the top people in the world to distribute goods, and she said I should concentrate on other things, because pharmaceutical shipments in Iraq were simply not going to happen.
What does it mean?
It means that I don’t know how we are going to have a positive impact on this country without a radical shift in leadership. I really want this to work. But doing what we’ve been doing means we have a long, long, long, long hard road ahead.
Anything is possible, with money, time, and lives. But there are easy roads and there are hard roads.
The road that’s been chosen is pretty bad. It’s not a road to be particularly impressed by.
That’s the situation we are IN. It would be easier to get out of this situation if we acknowledged it, and started working on real-world solutions.
One solution we need to work on is an emergency pharmeceutical dissemenation infrastructure. Another solution we need to work on is a streamlined electricity parts distribution organization.
You would think these two organizations would exist. But they don’t. And a constitution isn’t going to do much about that.
Posted by: Julia at August 23, 2005 04:33 PMI appreciate the recognition and thanks. I posted my credentials as a response from MyPetGoat, ” please enlist to help with the effort. I already have, and am now out on medical for a blown knee.” I don’t usually advertise my past experiences. In fact, being a veteran during the Clinton years almost seemed embarrassing.
I came out of Vietnam OK. Several of my comrads and friends didn’t. The ones that really need our thanks are the ones that didn’t arrive home safely.
Also deserving our appreciation are the wonderful volenteers in our armed forces now who are doing a marvelous job in the Middle East.
MyPetGoat,
You put the comment in quotation marks indicating it was a quote from the President. I take quotes seriously.
And I sincerely appreciate your service to our country too.
Julia, I grew up in India and immigrated(legally) to US 7 years ago. Out of the 23 combined things you listed under Negatives and Things that haven’t changed, I would say about 16-20 of them happen in India without a doubt.
Others,
I see a lot of the blame pie being awarded to President Bush however I see very very few mentions of this:
Congresspeople vote
Senators vote
Sorry, I will save you all some trouble. I hope you cast your ballots intelligently in 2006.
Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Bill Number: H J Res 114
Date: 2002-10-11
Blanche L. Lincoln Democrat Y
Dianne Feinstein Democrat Y
Joseph I. Lieberman Democrat Y
Christopher J. Dodd Democrat Y
Thomas Richard Carper Democrat Y
Joseph R. Biden Democrat Y
Bill Nelson Democrat Y
Thomas ‘Tom’ Harkin Democrat Y
Evan Bayh Democrat Y
Mary L. Landrieu Democrat Y
John Forbes Kerry Democrat Y
Max S. Baucus Democrat Y
E. Benjamin ‘Ben’ Nelson Democrat Y
Harry M. Reid Democrat Y
Charles E. Schumer Democrat Y
Hillary Rodham Clinton Democrat Y
Tim P. Johnson Democrat Y
Maria Cantwell Democrat Y
Herbert H. ‘Herb’ Kohl Democrat Y
John D. ‘Jay’ Rockefeller Democrat Y
Byron L. Dorgan Democrat-NPL Y
Brown,
I would suggest that the pervasiveness of the abuse in India is less widespread than in Iraq. I would also suggest that the individuals we have in Iraq “fixing” these problems would also not be effective “fixing” the problems in India, which is the whole issue.
I would also suggest that the aggregate of what I said shows that life, in general, is worse for Iraqis today than it was pre-war. America is not better off today due to anything that has been done in Iraq. America faces the same potential long term threats as it did before.
But despite that, the positive is that there is opportunity for a better future for Iraqis.
But it is opportunity only. It takes real leadership, and real expertise, to bring about transformation. India is on a much faster road for transformation than Iraq. And look how long it is taking in India. And look at all the problems that remain.
We need to be prepared to spend 600 billion dollars in Iraq to be certain we see REAL and long term transformation. Or we can continue to gamble and wage peace on the cheap.
Transforming Afghanistan, Turkey, or Indonesia would have been much less difficult. And has an equal amount of upside.
Posted by: Julia at August 23, 2005 09:39 PMMr. Maggoo:
Alright, you convinced me. Maybe the invasion was a bad idea. For sure, Junior wanted to get Saddam for his failed attempt on the senior Bush’s life. I read as much of that talk in various magazines, including Vanity Fair. Bush used his power and influence as the leader of the most powerful nation on earth to satisfy a personal vendetta. Everything else … every other excuse or reason was secondary to him, including the massive profits to be obtained by his oil company friends. At least all Clinton wanted was a blow job. What a shame. Thank God we all love Lucy.
Posted by: weewillie94 at August 24, 2005 08:12 AMMorning All:
The title of this thread makes me wonder “Just how many other lies, cheats, and deceptions has Bushco carried out against us?”
Just Asking,
As Always,
Wayne
Reinehold wrote:
The Case for Invading Iraq posted on November 1, 2004
Well, for starters, this was written 18 months AFTER the case for war was made, so it, like Bush, has room to change arguments as facts are proven wrong.
pretty much all this says is;
1. WMD (proven wrong)
2. Human Rights (not stated back in Spring, 2003)
3. Support for Terrorism (no mention of the Terrorist who attacked the United states).
I just wish to hell these incomptent Republicans would get their act together and go after Bin Laden. He attacked the USA, remember???
Steve
Posted by: Steve at August 24, 2005 01:12 PMSteve
Human rights was a very prominent argument before the war. The U.S. government even sponsored speaking tours by Kurds and swamp Arabs.
The president mentioned it in his 2003 State of the Union:
“Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained — by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)
“And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country — your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)”
Wow, Steve, did you even READ the article?
1) The article was written with the first paragraph detailing how Bush and the administration were wrong in framing the need for invasion. They screwed up, I agree with that THEN. But the invasion was still needed and should have been done in the mid ’90s. Bush sold it wrong but at least he did it, Clinton was unable to…
2) Human right were stated but, as I stated before, not sold properly to the US. It is the reason that CLINTON stated as the reason we should try remove him from power, after 4 years of peaceful means not accomplishing it and the realization after 9/11 that containment was another attack waiting to happen, we decided to act more forcefully.
3) There is mention of several terrorists being harbored in Iraq that *DID* attack the US and resulted in US deaths, including the mastermind behind the first WTC bombing. It was remarked at that time by a CIA official that ‘Hussein didn’t kill enough people, we aren’t going to react strongly enough to this’. Are you really that blind to think that only bin laden matters? That no other terrorist organization is worthy of our disdain and attention? bin laden is hiding in a hole in Pakistan somewhere, the person who masterminded 9/11 is in custody and we are taking down regimes that are friendly and support terrorism one way or another. I see no other way to deal with it at this point, do you? Are you that blinded to say that only getting bin laden (who had little to do with the actually planning and carrying out of 9/11 actually compared to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed) matters?
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 24, 2005 02:59 PMFurthermore, Steve, didn’t you just ask for someone who supported the war to make thier case for doing so? I think that it very well did.
Of course, we can debate those points, but why debate the fact that the Bush administration screwed up on their ability to ‘sell’ the war?
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 24, 2005 03:40 PMI haven’t posted on here for awhile because I really get sick and tired of the same old anonymous opinions being spewed. Opinions that would never be stated to someone’s face.
Anyway, I am less disturbed by the fact that Mr. Bush (I can’t call him president yet) is still using Iraq, 9/11, and terrorism in the same sentence after all of the evidence against the facts (which means he is just plain stubborn) and more disturbed by the War on the left (50%) of the country.
Currently the powers that be (Rebublicans) are fighting a war in Iraq, Afghanistan, possibly Iran and against the left 50% of the country. They are spreading themselves too thin and attacking your fellow countryman will lead to civil war.
As much as you want those loony liberals to shut up, fall in line and quack like ducks. That’s not about to happen.
The Cindy Sheehan vigil is a perfect example. The right has no problem fighting for Terry Shaivo’s braindead life but somehow doesn’t have a problem tearing Cindy Sheehan down because she does not agree with the Republican party line. She has been called everything from a loon, a quack, to anti-american.
But like Neil Young stated in one of his songs - Its better to burn out than to fade away.
That is what will happen to the Republicans if they don’t stop the war (on the left) that is.
reed
ps. I wouldn’t have a problem stating that opinion at a Republican Fund Raiser.
Posted by: reed at August 24, 2005 04:53 PMJust to set the record straight, let me remind everyone that the mere existence of WMD alone was not sufficient to justify invasion under international law. There had to be an “imminent threat” to the US, which is why Bush’s handlers fixed the intelligence to make it appear that Saddam not only had WMD, possibly nuclear, but that he was very soon going to use them. And some (a la Rhinehold) still believe that to this day. But let’s be clear: there are no data to support this belief. It is, like religion, a leap of faith, in which one has to ignore obvious facts in order to persist in the belief.
I know this post isn’t going to affect the tone or content of the discussion, but I do like the ring of truth once in a while.
Posted by: Mental Wimp at August 24, 2005 05:50 PMGee, Mental Wimp, how do you explain the following?
1) Iraq, In the top 5 state sponsors worldwide before the invation
2) Russia had and provided information to the US that Iraq was planning to attack the US after 9/11 and before the invasion
3) Iraq was shooting, daily, at the US and UK planes patrolling the no fly zone
4) Iraq was offering a bounty for anyone who could ‘bag’ a US soldier
5) Iraq was stalling and blocking, up to the day of the invation, to the best of their ability and at the very bare minimum requirement when posible, the UN efforts to get him to comply with their agreements
6) Ties to numerous terrorist organizations (including Al Qaeda) who would gladly have used provided materials to attack the US
Now, those are facts. How do they not lead up to the realization that Iraq was a serious emminent threat to the US? In fact, that they were shooting at US planes, doesn’t that constitute enough to go to war?
And, if it isn’t, how did we allow Clinton to bomb Kosovo into the stone age with uranium depleted weapons? How were they an emminent threat to the US? Is that an illegal act and should Clinton be under trial at the Hague right now along with Milosovich?
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 24, 2005 06:02 PMRhinehold, there were 3 arguments presented to congress.
1) WMD 2) Non-compliance with UN 3)Sponsoring terrorism (including Al Qaeda).
The terrorist names you had in your article, as far as I know, comprise every single terrorist that Saddam may have supported. It isn’t a highlight, it’s the whole shebang. It is the totality of Saddam’s terrorist support.
The issue is that the U.S. has supported a similar number of individuals who have killed civilians in the name of “justice” (or whatever). Louis Posada Carillo comes to mind. PKK is nothing compared to our training and monetary support of El Salvadorian death squads.
In addition, it is clear that the terrorist support he did engage in (which, again, was not substantial) was not anti-west, it was anti-Isreal. That’s not good, of course, but if these were anti-Russian terrorists (Chechnyan fighters), I’d say we wouldn’t care.
The other problem is that a portion of the terrorists you name were on Kurdish soil which was under the control of the U.S.
Anyway, of the three arguments:
1) WMD (ended up being wrong)
2) State supported terrorism (not substantial… equivalent to U.S. support of individuals who terrorized civilian populations… not anti-west)
3) Violation of U.N. Sanctions (True)
Personally, I think Cheney and Wolfowitz were the people who really authorized the war, and it was their reasons why we actually went to war. And I think those reasons are outlined in the papers they started writing in 1992 (about why going to war with Iraq would be a smart idea).
Their reasons included WMD, among a host of other issues. I think in many ways they were mislead by their own worldviews. I think their personality set them up for making fundamental mistakes, and that they are the type of people who think war is an excellent tool that can accomplish many things.
In short, I think George Bush got a lot of bad advice which he was predisposed to believe in. It is his predisposition towards fear, towards war, and towards bad solutions that I personally have a problem with. I also think he is a bad manager. I don’t think he involves himself too much in oversight, which, I think makes him dangerous and (in many cases) highly incompetent.
I think his leadership style is ill-suited to address the problems we are facing, and I think the foreign team he has assembled suffers from the same weaknesses.
Do I think Bush lied? No. I think he was misguided. I think he was wrong. And he was incapable of being objective. The problem is, I think he’s still that way today.
Posted by: Julia at August 24, 2005 06:10 PMWell, and let me also say that I do think he “sexed up” a lot of his explanation for why war was necesarry.
Posted by: Julia at August 24, 2005 06:12 PMRhinehold, Rhinehold, Rhinehold
Emphatically repeating the fixed intelligence in full disregard of their thorough and repeated discrediting does not make them facts. Pull your head out of the echo chamber once in a while.
Posted by: Mental Wimp at August 24, 2005 06:13 PMRhinehold, there were 3 arguments presented to congress. 1) WMD 2) Non-compliance with UN 3)Sponsoring terrorism (including Al Qaeda).
Well, they did include human rights violations, but yeah, the administration screwed up in their selling of the action. I think that we agree on that?
Emphatically repeating the fixed intelligence in full disregard of their thorough and repeated discrediting does not make them facts. Pull your head out of the echo chamber once in a while
Gee, I’m sorry Mental Wimp, did you attempt to discredit anything I listed?
Might I reply that ‘arguing that something is discredited without providing any discrediting information does not make them discredited’.
Please, provide any kind of discrediting of what *I* said (not what you think I said or you heard someone else who supported the war said) so we can actually have something to debate?
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 24, 2005 06:22 PMI’ve got to agree with Julia’s last post, however Mental Wimp’s use of the words “fixed intelligence” I believe is incorrect. If the reference is to the British memo, in Brit English “fixed” means “put in place”, not made up or altered as in American english.
Posted by: Warren Dace at August 24, 2005 08:35 PMThe problem with Julia’s last post is that it seems to suggest we should only go after terrorist states that hurt or target a large number of US citizens. Just supporting and propogating terror is not enough. If you don’t kill thousands of US citizens with terrorist activities, you’ll be fine.
She also asks why the US is not a ‘terror state’ when we have terrorists in the US, when the obvious answer is that we are not, as a country, supporting their actions.
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 25, 2005 06:47 AMRhinehold,
The CIA training Carillo isn’t supporting him? Training and funding the death squads in El Salvador isn’t supporting them? True, we justified our support for these guys by saying we were defeating bad guys, but the end result is the same. Killing civilians in the name of… whatever.
As for going after terror states, I’m merely saying that Saddam didn’t operate much of a terror state, and he certainly wasn’t aiding and abetting any groups that were focusing on the overthrow of western culture.
I’d prefer us to focus on going after the terror organizations themselves. Afghanistan is an example of a state that truly supported anti-western terror. I don’t see a standing equivalent today.
The number one civilian-murdering organization is the guys in the Sudan who are raping and beheading villagers. The prime supporters of anti-Isreali terror come from Syria, Iran, and Suadi Arabia (well, and Palestine, although that’s a little difficult to define… is Hamas Palestine? Or is Abbas? Also, shall we go to war with Palestine?). Chechnyan rebels have tried to actually murder schoool children.
On the scale of priorities, Saddam wasn’t very high. He didn’t organize these guys… hardly the equiavelent of the Sudan, where Osama bin Ladin recieved actual monetary support to train and procure weapons. Hardly the equiavlent of Pakistan, where Al Qaeda continues to clandestinely operate.
You can try to paint this black and white, but the truth is, that Saddam was small potatoes on the terrorist front, he was small potatoes on the WMD front, and in terms of protecting America from terrorism, concentrating our analysts and money on… say… Pakistan (who actively proliferated nuclear weapons just a few years ago), might have been a smarter idea.
Prioritizing danger IS important. Prioritizing likelihood of success is also important. Unfortunately, the U.S. has FINITE resources.
Iraq was going to be expensive. It IS expensive. It’s hard. It’s filled with factions. It also had a weak army, a weak organization infrastructure, a dictator who was having to spend most of his time keeping his people in line (as opposed to plotting ways to overthrow the U.S.). Compare that to the crazy guy in North Korea who said he was building nuclear weapons, and the Iranians who purchased nuclear technology from Pakistan, and Pakistan, who was proliferating nuclear technology, and the Sudan who actively gave asylum to Osama bin Ladin, and Afghanistan who was running terror training camps.
Posted by: Julia at August 25, 2005 02:38 PM
