Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

OttO, all said and done, looks to me from the current status of Iraq, that we should have listened to the Russians and French. Perhaps they saw the coming quagmire that Pres. Bush didn’t? I certainly did.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 25, 2005 05:45 AM

OttO,

You certainly raise some interesting question, OttO. I guess we’ll never know for sure. I do remember that during the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein was accused of being insane. Does anyone know if that’s been verified? If he’s actually insane the resolutions might not have done any good and we would have still ended up where we are.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 25, 2005 08:01 AM

David,

For someone who was just giving me a lesson in historical significance, you sure seem inclined to miss the point about this lesson.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 25, 2005 08:04 AM

If each nation had stood side by side with the US and Britain and declared that they were each willing to commit thousands of troops, unstoppable air power and the financial might of the western world to destroy Saddams military and end his bloody regime…do you think there would have been any chance at all that this war would have ever taken place?

Yes. The war still would have happened. What do you see as the alternative?

Iraq surrendering their WMDs? - They didn’t have any to surrender.
Iraq saying they had not WMDs? - That’s what they were doing.
Iraq allowing inspections? - That’s what they were doing.

In short, once Bush decided to go to war, there was nothing short of Saddam’s abdication which would have prevented the war, and there was no way that was happening.

Remember, in 1991, we had a large coalition similar to what you theorize here, and yet Saddam prepared for war instead of returning Kuwait.

There’s no reason at all to suppose that support from France and Russia would have prevented the war.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 25, 2005 08:30 AM

OttO:

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA….

lET ME CATCH MY BREATH…

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA…

Talk about revisionist history!!!

Oh My *******!!!

Resolution 1441 was supposed to trigger a SECOND UN RESOLUTION!!! That’s why you got the 14-0 vote!!! In Diplomat Talk, “severe consequences” DOES NOT mean immediate military action!!!!!!! That’s why Blair kept insisting on a second UN Resolution!!! That’s why Blair is in trouble in England!!!!!

OMG!!!!!!!

OMG!!!!!!

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!

By the way, whatever happened to the 8 BILLION DOLLARS of Iraqi Money that the US LOST? You Conservatives keep spouting the measly 3 Billion UN thing, you never did answer where the 8 BILLION went!!!

I swear…. whoever did your programming must win the Nobel Prize for Mind Control!!! OMG!!!!!!!!

OMG!!!!!!

HA HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Aldous at August 25, 2005 08:59 AM

It is not war abroad that bothers me so much as the continual war at home that intensifies each time we send troops to foreign lands. Although we mostly use the word “America” when speaking in reference to our nation, it would be preferable to hear the words “United States.” One thing is for sure, we had better settle our differences here at home or we will find that while we were out in the world settling the differences of other nations, our nation fell from diverse opinions.

The thing that the terrorist have shown by their actions is that they are an igniter, but we are the dynamite!

Matthew 12:25 “… Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand …”

Posted by: Lnala77 at August 25, 2005 09:18 AM

Aldous,

I’m not that surprised. The Right has to acknowledge the reality that things are not going well in Iraq, but they can’t bear to blame the Bush Administration. Blaming the victim didn’t work too well, so now they’re onto the next step: blame the bystanders.

It’s all about accountability these days, isn’t it?

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 25, 2005 09:53 AM

Lawnboy,

Iraq surrendering their WMDs? - They didn’t have any to surrender.

You’re killing me. I see you’ve forgotten how much posturing went on with Saddam PRIOR to our being allowed to search for WMDs. I see you’ve forgotten that we were not allowed to search EVERYWHERE (until after the armed forces arrived). In fact, we had to provide written details of where we wanted to look, and then Saddam, after a certain amount of time, would “okay” the search in that area.

Iraq saying they had not WMDs? - That’s what they were doing.

LOL - You need to stop eating liberal soup.

Iraq allowing inspections? - That’s what they were doing.

Read my first section.

Posted by: BruceP at August 25, 2005 10:04 AM

BruceP,

You haven’t answered the question of what Saddam would have done differently to prevent the war in response to a more unified front. All you’ve done is claim that there must have been WMDs despite the fact that none have been found and claim that making a conclusion based on those facts is “liberal soup.”

Sorry, not convincing.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 25, 2005 10:09 AM

BruceP:

It is impossible to prove a negative. Regardless, you have obviously forgotten that the previous Weapons Inspectors were full of CIA Agents. These “Weapons Inspectors” allowed the US to target Iraq in airstrikes. Once again, you have forgotten History.

Doesn’t matter anyway. Iraq is a Republican War.

Posted by: Aldous at August 25, 2005 11:01 AM

To All Republicans:

Since I am certain you will all deny the obvious and the word “Google” seems unknown to you. Here is the PROVEN facts:

_________________________________________________
What happened to Unscom?

In December 1998, Unscom pulled out of Iraq amid complaints of obstruction by Iraq. Meanwhile, Baghdad claimed that the body was little more than a front for US spies (with some justification; the presence of CIA agents was later confirmed by the US, UN and former inspectors). It left ahead of Operation Desert Fox, 70 hours of US-British airstrikes designed to punish Iraq for failing to cooperate with the inspectors.

Posted by: Aldous at August 25, 2005 11:10 AM

The UN is NOT irrelivent, it was doing what it was created to do. To PEACEFULLY resolve conflicts, Peaceful means no war by the way. The weapons inspenctors, dispite not having full access said that there were no WMD’s. All other major intelegence services from around the world, including our own and the Isreals, which is the best intelegence agancy in the world, especially in the middle east said no WMD’s. And lo and behold there wern’t.
As for showing a strong face with all are allies, that is what Bush did with the senate that he said Kerry flip-floped on, Kerry voted to give the power to go to war to Bush to show a strong hand, a big stick if you will, which is all Bush said it was at the time.
Even though I agree that Sadam was a bad dictator, and I am glad that he is no longer in power, the UN had him under a microscope. He wasn’t going to try nothing. The last time he did Isreal cought it, and we blew it up. We were/are fighting the right war in Afganistan, where the terrerist are, and should have finished that way before even thinking of invading Iraq. If Sadam REALEY tried anything, like with real WMD’s and stuff, and the US had REAL intelegence, not term papers and made up Africa stories, the UN would have been more then happy, as it was in 1991, to help and get rid of Saddam.

Posted by: Matt at August 25, 2005 11:18 AM

I think the polls, If you put stock in them, would till you that many on the right would say that the war is not going well, and that they blame Bush. But,what does it matter. Should we tuck our tails and run like the cowardly French. I don’t think so. War is not an exact science. Many things can and will go wrong. Adjust and move on. War is an ugly thing, but sometimes it’s the only way. If Mr. Clinton, along wih his leftist friends, would have done a few things different, Korea wouldn’t be so far along with their nukes, and maybe, just maybe, Bin Laden would of been hung in Sudan. But no. With all our hindsight lets just blame Bush for everything. Nevermine that Clinton, Gore, the UN, and the rest of the world was united in reguards to Saddam. The fact that he had WMD’s, had used them, and would use them again was believed, for whatever reason, by most. The Clinton adm., the UN and so on. As far as the UN. Dissolve it an start a new world organization. One that is nothing like the present bunch of crooks.

Posted by: John at August 25, 2005 11:20 AM

Otto and Stephanie,

There are no lessons here. Only fantasies that you have to try hard and “imagine”. Again, how are you able to twist logic to blame those that tried to keep us out of Iraq (UN, France, Russia) with actually causing us to have to go to war?

We know that the sanctions were working. End of story.

Who gives a damn whether France or Germany’s leaders are popular in their own country? We have enough problems to deal with here with our own incompetent politicians.

The next time you go rah-rah for an anti-US, anti-war government in Europe, ask yourself this: why is it that the very countries you worship for their political stances also seem to be the least of concern for Al Queda?

Who could possibly be less concerned about Al Qaeda than the U.S. Republican party? Osama Bin Laden’s name was not mentioned one time during the 2004 Republican convention. Not once!

Face it, you can blame France all you want, but the problem is looking right at you in the mirror.

Posted by: Burt at August 25, 2005 11:29 AM

I agree with some of the others; it is impossible to determine what Saddam would have done differently if France and Russia had been a part of the coalition. In his desire for power, I believe that he would have stayed in Iraq, in defiance of French/Russian/US instruction or any additional UN resolution, and we’d be in the same situation we are in now.

France and Russia probably would not have sent troops, perhaps some logistical support and some cash. The same applies with Germany if they had jumped on board.

Liberals would still label the war as an invasion of a sovereign nation, as well as continue to call it a “US occupation”. Cindy Sheehan would still be protesting her son’s “immoral and unjustified” death, and Michael Moore still would have made his propaganda film. Bush-Bashing would be just as trendy as it is today.

So in short, I don’t think anything would have changed, even if France and Russia had joined the coalition. At least liberals wouldn’t be able to use the now-hackneyed phrase of “unilateral action” or other synonyms.

But thanks, OttO, for hypothesizing and pointing out some of the conveniently ignored facts that don’t suit the media agenda. It might also be valid to point out that we haven’t been able to depend on the French since 1781, a lesson we, as a nation, have forgotten time and time again.

Posted by: LimeTime at August 25, 2005 11:42 AM

Beat up on the French.
Beat up on the Liberals.
Beat up on the UN.

Won’t make a difference in terms of the mess we’re in, but it’ll sure make you feel better, won’t it?

We shouldn’t capitulate to these guys all the time, but we should be in better control of the situation than this.

By going to war on the case for war we did, we put America in a position of weakness. We made it easier to doubt what we said, easier to ignore our unpenitent pleas for help, easier for our enemies to flaunt their misbehavior in our face. Instead of making just the UN irrelevant, We’ve made ourselves more irrelevant.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 25, 2005 11:57 AM

You’re wasting you’re time Stephen Daugherty. The fact that we have an Enlistment Shortage despite 61,000,000 bonifide war-supporters means that Republicans no more believe Iraq is worth it than Liberals do. So they stay back here with yellow magnets on their cars huddled in the backseat clutching their kids whispering, “Don’t let there be a draft dear Lord.”

Posted by: Aldous at August 25, 2005 12:08 PM

When the majority of your friends tell you that it’s a bad idea to go over to your neighbor’s house, kick in their door, beat them up, and trash their place for reasons that nobody else but you believes, maybe you should listen to them. Furthermore, if you ask your friends quietly (using something that the Bush League apparently doesn’t know about called diplomacy), you won’t be publicly humiliated when they refuse to take part in such stupidity.

Posted by: ElliottBay at August 25, 2005 12:31 PM

Stephanie -

I think that Saddam by definition is insane but even more importantly, I think he is a coward who had to weigh his desire to remain in power against his desire to live. A strong international front would have tipped the scales.

David -

Look up - that sound you here was my point flying right over your head.

Lawnboy -

In 1991, Saddam had a formidable military machine. It was destroyed and decimated. The biggest threat that Saddam posed was the potential for a nuclear threat (as Saddam himself acknowledged as his biggest mistake prior to the invasion of Kuwait was NOT waiting until he was nuclear-armed) or the potential for a partnership of wmds and terrorists, particularly Al Queda. Regardless of what wmds were or weren’t found, key UN resolutions very specifically laid the burden of proof and cooperation at his feet, not at George Bush’s or Tony Blairs.

I’m sorry that you feel that Saddam Hussein was done wrong. But do you really think that Saddam was bold enough to put his ragtag and demoralized military up against the forces of the US, Britain, France, China, Russia along with many of the temp members of the UNSC and other coalition partners? Do you not think that things may have turned out differently had he not felt that the UNSC would do everything it could to prevent the invasion? Try a sincere approach to this and let me know what you think.

Aldous -

Right. The world was evil and Saddam was misunderstood. You’ve made your case.

The weapons inspectors were full of CIA agents? This is a new one for me. Care to provide a legitimate source, other than Saddam’s information minister?

Burt -

Of course it’s fantasy. My point was that the countries that tried to prevent the invasion had an overwhelming obligation to enforce its rules or face the same fate as the League of Nations. I don’t think it is completely unreasonable to assume that had they done their jobs with firm resolve that things would have turned out different. Otherwise, why ever go to them for anything if, as you suggest, their positioning makes no difference? Perhaps they are irrelevant.

Matt -

The League of Nations was set up after WWI with the mission of ‘never again’. The US wanted no part of it and for the most part isolated themselves from Europe. Both entities made a mistake. The L of N’s appeasement and peace-at-any-cost mentality allowed the very threats that they were supposed to prevent to grow out of control. You can’t trust peace to solve the problems of dictators and tyrants. Hitler and Mussolini unfortunately prove this and the ‘never again’ didn’t quite work, did it?

Stephen -

I think the French deserve a little beating up, especially in the growing revelations of the illegal involvement of French officials and the Saddam regime. And yes, I think it is appropriate to examine history, even if you don’t like where the spotlight shines.

Posted by: OttO at August 25, 2005 12:32 PM

I think the point of this article is that the UN had an opportunity to keep (or make) the peace, but didn’t step forward.

If the Russians and French had not blocked us in the UN, things would have worked out better.

The Coalition performed superbly in the actual war phase. It is difficult to envision a more successful operation. Even the war critics have given up questioning that. The problem came in the post-war. UN cooperation would have helped immensely at this time, but the cooperation was poisoned by the disagreements.

Let me add this, so that even the blame America people can understand. If the UN was trying to prevent war, or failing that, make the unrest less devastating, it failed miserably. Let’s blame America – hypothetically. The UN is faced with a very powerful rouge nation. Everyone is uncertain whether or not its claims are legitimate. What do you do?

Do you (a) make it nearly impossible for that nation to back down without great humiliation (b) accommodate that nation to the extent possible within the bounds of UN procedures (c) encourage the adversary to defy the powerful nation (d) do nothing (e) cooperate with the nation.

The French and the Russians chose options a & c. If they had chosen b war might have been avoided, although we almost certainly would have had regime change in Iraq – not a bad thing BTW. Option d would probably still produced a war, but with the greater possibility of cooperation beneficial to the Iraqi people after. Option e may have produced either war or peace. Peace more likely with regime change.

I don’t want to “blame” them since they were acting in what they thought were their best interests. But for the cause of world peace, their decisions were counter productive – even if you assume the U.S. was wrong. And if you assume the U.S. war right, the decisions were absolutely pernicious.

Posted by: jack at August 25, 2005 12:32 PM

Blame whomever. I can look in the mirror, and I’ve got no problem with it. I’m proud to be an American. I believe the US is the greatest nation in the world. I just believe the UN, French, and liberals are irrelevent. I dont let what they have to say bother me.

Posted by: John at August 25, 2005 12:38 PM

Blaming France is weak. Otto, you are promoting a weak Republican party. Stand up and take some ownership for better or worse.

Bush very clearly said it was not anyones job to search everywhere for weapons. It was Saddams’ job to bring the weapons front and center so they could be destroyed.

Read the book ‘Plan of Attack’by Bob Woodward - supported and heavily contributed to by The Bush Administration. Read something for gosh sakes.

Posted by: Ms Schwamp at August 25, 2005 12:51 PM

Jack,

Are you suggesting that we went to war to avoid great humiliation at the hands of the UN? Is that the noble cause that Mr. Bush refers to?

I only wish our leaders had the insight of the French in the days before the war.

I’d be interested in hearing exactly what you disagree with in that speech.

Posted by: Burt at August 25, 2005 12:53 PM

Aldous:

The fact that we have an Enlistment Shortage despite 61,000,000 bonifide war-supporters means that Republicans no more believe Iraq is worth it than Liberals do. So they stay back here with yellow magnets on their cars huddled in the backseat clutching their kids whispering, “Don’t let there be a draft dear Lord.”

U.S. Department of Defense
News Release
On the Web:
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2005/nr20050810-4393.html

IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 10, 2005
DoD Announces Recruiting and Retention Numbers for July

The Department of Defense announced today its recruiting and retention statistics by the active and reserve components for the month of July.

Active duty recruiting. The Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force met or exceeded their active duty recruiting goals in July.

Accessions Goal Percent

Army 8,085 7,450 109
Navy 4,739 4,780 99
Marine Corps 3,609 3,505 103
Air Force 2,099 2,087 101

Active duty retention. All services met or exceeded their overall retention goals for July and are projected to meet their retention goals for the current fiscal year.

Posted by: CommonSenseAintSoCommon at August 25, 2005 12:57 PM

Ms Schwamp,

I may support a wimpy Republican party, but it is hardly the weaker of the two parties. I think that voters have repeatedly made that clear since Bush was elected.

I’m not sure what your point about Saddam and wmds is being that I made that same exact point in my collage of responses.

And thank you, I own Woodward books, though I haven’t yet read that one yet. You don’t really say what it reveals that has to do with my point though. Perhaps you could summarize it for me.

Thanks.

Posted by: OttO at August 25, 2005 01:00 PM

Aldous
Let me know when you audition for Comedy Central. I really do want to watch.

When you put all the documents together and the time line is drawn, you will find that there were WMD’s in Iraq. They were removed to various places and are now unaccounted for.

If we had chosen not to invade Iraq, then the question without an answer is, How many people in Iraq today may not have survived The Iraqi Butcher and his fellow henchmen?

How many would have been tortured with The Butcher’s latest perversions?

Is not human life more dear than political choices that allow dictators to kill, kill, maim, main?

The Butcher is only the tip of the iceberg. There are any number of evil people that head up governments or are part of an international cabal that has no care for human life. The UN does not give any concern for life. If they did, they would be more proactive to save African, Asian, European and American lives. Instead they are corrupt to the bone. They prefer to seek self interest whether thru material possessions or power to further corrupt those they can.

The 9/11 Commission Report, if done with any modicum of accuracy, will show that there was a tie to Bin Laden and his terrorists. It will show that training was done in Iraq. It will show that Saddam was a threat to not only us but to the whole world.

Conclusion:
What we did by invading Iraq was to slow down the terrorists. It will take more action and a prolonged approach by future administrations to continue the War on Terror.

Posted by: tom at August 25, 2005 01:00 PM

I’m sorry that you feel that Saddam Hussein was done wrong.

Huh? I’ll thank you not to put such words in my mouth. I never said, implied, or thought anything like that.

But do you really think that Saddam was bold enough to put his ragtag and demoralized military up against the forces of the US, Britain, France, China, Russia along with many of the temp members of the UNSC and other coalition partners? Do you not think that things may have turned out differently had he not felt that the UNSC would do everything it could to prevent the invasion? Try a sincere approach to this and let me know what you think.

Yes, I really think the war would have happened anyway. I ask you again, how would the addition of France and Russia to the coalition have avoided the war? What do you think Saddam would have done differently that would have been sufficient reason for the war not to proceed?

This is the central premise of your post; that war might have been avoided if the entire Security Council had agreed with us. However, you have presented no proposed mechanism for this to have happened.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 25, 2005 01:00 PM

Burt

It is a very eloquent speech. The French were advocating done nothing and hoping something good would happen - the triumph of hope over experience.

Saddam was cooperating (sort of) because large numbers of U.S. troops were at his borders. He was not murdering Kurds and Shiites on a grand scale because U.S. and UK planes were patrolling his skies. He was subverting sanctions with the complicity of many in France.

We did invade Iraq and we got a set of consequences. If we had not done so, we would have a different set. It would certainly include Saddam remaining in power with increased prestige and regional clout. It would certainly include easing or lifting of sanctions, and Saddam free to once again do what he always did. It would probably include U.S. and UK standing down from patrolling the no-fly-zones (after all if Saddam in peaceful, this is unnecessary). What does that mean for the Kurds and Shiites? The Libyans probably would not have given up their own WMD program. The radical Palestinians would have still had their ally and paymaster. The radicals going to Iraq would now head for Afghanistan, where they would also be killing Americans soldiers. .

The humiliation would not have been at the “hands” of the UN but it would have emboldened our enemies (and we have some). It would have confirmed that if you confront the Americans, they run away. That is what Osama bin Laden told his followers and that is what he believed with some justification by events in the 1990s. These guys don’t respect weakness nor does it make them less likely to attack and kill.

Posted by: jack at August 25, 2005 01:13 PM

THE POWER OF UN DEMANDS

Whilst researching, I cam across UN Security Council Resolution 1267 on Afghanistan - Taliban Sanctions, adopted October 15, 1999, which includes the following:

Strongly condemning the continuing use of Afghan territory, especially areas controlled by the Taliban, for the sheltering and training of terrorists and planning of terrorist acts, and reaffirming its conviction that the suppression of international terrorism is essential for the maintenance of international peace and security,

Deploring the fact that the Taliban continues to provide safe haven to Usama bin Laden and to allow him and others associated with him to operate a network of terrorist training camps from Taliban-controlled territory and to use Afghanistan as a base from which to sponsor international terrorist operations,

Noting the indictment of Usama bin Laden and his associates by the United States of America for, inter alia, the 7 August 1998 bombings of the United States embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and for conspiring to kill American nationals outside the United States, and noting also the request of the United States of America to the Taliban to surrender them for trial (S/1999/1021),

[—-]

2. Demands that the Taliban turn over Usama bin Laden without further delay to appropriate authorities in a country where he has been indicted, or to appropriate authorities in a country where he will be returned to such a country, or to appropriate authorities in a country where he will be arrested and effectively brought to justice;

It sure helped that the Security Council did all that “condeming”, “deploring” and “demanding”, now didn’t it?

http://poliblogger.com/

Posted by: CommonSenseAintSoCommon at August 25, 2005 01:17 PM

UN Security Council Fails Global Test

A LEAKED report has exposed the extent of alleged corruption in the United Nations’ oil-for-food scheme in Iraq, identifying up to 200 individuals and companies that made profits running into hundreds of millions of pounds from it.

The report largely implicates France and Russia, whom Saddam Hussein targeted as he sought support on the UN Security Council before the Iraq war. Both countries were influential voices against UN-backed action.

A senior UN official responsible for the scheme is identified as a major beneficiary. The report, marked “highly confidential‎, also finds that the private office of Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, profited from the cheap oil. Saddam’s regime awarded this oil during the run-up to the war when military action was being discussed at the UN.

The report was drawn up on behalf of the interim Iraqi government in preparation for a possible legal action against those who may have illicitly profited under Saddam. The Iraqis hired the London-based accountants KPMG and lawyers Freshfields to advise on future action.

It details a catalogue of alleged bribery and corruption perpetrated by Saddam under the UN programme, revealing how the regime lined its pockets and those of influential politicians, journalists and UN officials.

The UN oil-for-food scheme was set up in 1995 to allow Iraq to sell controlled amounts of oil to raise money for humanitarian supplies. However, the leaked report reveals Saddam systematically abused the scheme, using it to buy “political influence‎ throughout the world.

The former Iraqi regime was in effect free to “allocate‎ oil to whom it wished. Dozens of private individuals were given oil at knockdown prices. They were able to nominate recognised traders to buy the cheap oil from the Iraqi state oil firm and sell it for a personal profit.

The report says oil was given to key countries: “The regime gave priority to Russia, China and France. This was because they were permanent members of, and hence had the ability to influence decisions made by, the UN Security Council. The regime … allocated ‘private oil’ to individuals or political parties that sympathised in some way with the regime.‎

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1291280,00.html

Posted by: CommonSenseAintSoCommon at August 25, 2005 01:22 PM

Thanks Common,

Frankly, I think it is very diplomatic and patient for the Bush administration to not demand that any nation that is willing to ‘sell’ it’s Security Council vote should be barred from the UNSC. I hope that the installment of John Bolton as UN Ambassador will have a positive and lasting impact on this enormous and corrupt bureacracy called the United Nations.

Posted by: OttO at August 25, 2005 01:33 PM

Jack -

Well said.

America should never be comfortable backing down from a conflict. It was the threat of force that got the inspectors back into Iraq and the UN wanted to systematically undermine that force.

And that would have accomplished what?

Posted by: OttO at August 25, 2005 01:39 PM

I find it amazing that the wrong wing, which constantly touts itself as advocating taking responsibility for one’s actions, is now trying to place the blame on France and/or the UN for the situation in Iraq. This double standard is one more reason of why the Republican Party should seriously consider changing the spelling of its name to H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E-S.

Posted by: ElliottBay at August 25, 2005 01:55 PM

“Liberals would still label the war as an invasion of a sovereign nation”

It wasn’t??

Posted by: womanmarine at August 25, 2005 02:24 PM

March 11, 2003, Jaques Chirac announced his ultimatum to the United States: France, one of five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, would use its veto power to oppose any UN resolution that led to war against Saddam Hussein. Russia immediately followed suit.

And rightly so. Up until then, France had been working with the Pentagon to integrate an armored division, a carrier group, and hundreds of planes into the attack plan.

But by March, inspectors had been crawling all over Iraq for months, the IAEA had cleared Iraq of having a nuclear weapons program the previous January, and UNMOVIC was weeks away from clearing them of having any other WMD.

If 1441 was the reason to go to war, the war was unnecessary. France was right, President Bush was wrong.

After it became obvious that Saddam Hussein was interfering in the weapons inspection process

Except that he wasn’t. Hans Blix was satisfied with the cooperation he was getting.

OttO, this is all nothing but blame-shifting BS and fantasy. The fact is, President Bush decided to pull the trigger even as inspectors were reporting that there was no WMD to be found, and it’s pretty weak that you Bush-fans won’t take responsibility. Hell, even President Bush isn’t trying to find scapegoats yet.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 25, 2005 02:25 PM

AP,

Was Iraq in violation of UN resolutions?

Posted by: CommonSenseAintSoCommon at August 25, 2005 02:38 PM

It amazes me how Republicans blame everyone else but themselves for whatever goes wrong. It’s the fault of the liberals, the Democrats, the UN, France….

How could it possibly be the fault of a great Republican president? Bush is never wrong. Bush is a military genius. His Republican followers believe in him completely because he is never wrong.

So, obviously, the reason Iraq is in a quagmire is not the fault of our great leader. Bush knew what to do early on and he laid the law down to the UN. He told the UN, in effect: “Do as I say or the UN will be irrelevant.” France did not think it should be spoken to this way.

But what did France expect? Bush is the leader of the free world. Follow him or you are an appeaser.

oTTo: Try to admit the remote possibility that Bush may have been wrong in how he handled Iraq.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at August 25, 2005 03:36 PM

Womanmarine,

Iraq is indeed a sovereign nation, but you’re missing the point.

Regardless of any international coalition, with our without the French and/or Russians, the backlash at home would have been the same. If WMD had been found in Iraq, the backlash at home would have been the same. Liberals would have found yet another excuse on why the war was wrong, allowing Saddam more time to pursue WMD, exterminate Kurds, fill mass graves, violate UN resolutions, etc.

The left wing is driven by a blind hatred of Bush that can not be curbed. With or without the Iraq war, with or without 9/11, their hatred remains the same: everything is Bush’s fault, and he must be impeached. What can one do against such reckless hate?

Posted by: LimeTime at August 25, 2005 03:37 PM

LimeTime,

I see your point now. Liberals would attack Bush no matter what he does, so why should he try to do anything right? It’s a lot harder than vacationing, that’s for sure.

Posted by: Burt at August 25, 2005 04:28 PM

Lawnboy -

Sorry, you certainly did imply it. I’m sorry that some people think that they can spout these creative and non-stop criticisms of the intentions of the Bush administration and not come off sounding like they think that Saddam gone is a bad thing.

Question: If the support of France and Russia was not important, then why did everyone treat it like so when the US circumvented their obstructionism?

It was very important, for a couple of reasons:

First, the UNSC would have at least appeared to be united, rather than divided and opposing each other. Most analyses of the war that I have read acknowledge that Saddam was counting on the bureacracy of the UNSC to protect his regime.

Secondly, Saddam would not have been under the illusion that his past relationships with the two nations would give him an umbrella against compliance. I think that is very important. Don’t you?

Paul -

What ‘fault’ are you refering to? I don’t fault the Bush administration, the Congress and the military for doing what I see as the right thing. I certainly don’t blame the Clinton administration who officialized the policy of regime change for Iraq because it was the right thing to do. I do blame our UN allies for not having the convictions to put their money where their mouths have been for the past 12 years and treat Saddam’s questionable and corrupt authority as bigger than the now apparent corrupt authority of the international law-making body.

Elliot -

The ‘wrong-wing’ as you like to cleverly put it, did take responsibility. Liberals always blame Republicans for supporting, befriending and arming Saddam Hussein. They also like to blame Republicans for not ‘taking him out’ in the first Gulf War (because we all know that’s what they wanted). And now the Republicans have said that it’s time to clean up the mess. Would ‘taking responsibility’ mean ignoring Saddam’s defiance? Ignoring the ceasefire agreement from 1991? Perhaps lifting the sanctions and stop protecting the Kurds? I’m not really getting your logic here.

I certainly don’t blame France for doing something about Iraq. I blame them for not fulfilling their obligations.

AP -

The weapons inspectors had not come to any solid conclusions about wmds because of Saddams interferences with the process, a big no-no in the agreement to restart the inspections process, and they made their frustrations very clear. Where did the UN tell Saddam that as long as he let the inspectors in, that was good enough, even if he didn’t allow them unfettered access to do their tasks properly? Hans Blix (anti-war Frenchman) is on record as expressing disatisfaction with Saddam. He did ask for more time, not because (IMO) he necessarily thought it would accomplish anything, but because he simply wanted to avoid war, and that wasn’t proxy to his position.

March 17, 2004 interview:

JIM LEHRER: So was it clear to you and your inspectors and clear to others that you talked to at the time that there probably were no weapons of mass destruction there to be found?

HANS BLIX: No, that is going too far. I mean we…there were lots of question marks. You see, there were lots of things that were unaccounted for. We knew that they had had quantities of mustard gas and anthrax and other things, and they could not tell us with any evidence of where it had gone. Therefore, it was labeled unaccounted for. However, there was a tendency on both the U.S. side and the U.K. side to equate unaccounted for with existing. And that was an error.
———
The label of ‘error’ is his pacificst opinion. If I’m told that the man breaking into my back door may or may not have a gun, I think the error would be to assume that he doesn’t. For the sake of disarming Iraq, ‘unaccounted’ certainly had better mean ‘existing’. Otherwise, why inspect at all?

I just love it when people spend all of their time politicizing war to the point where they paint a picture of the enemy murderous tyrant as somehow misunderstood, or not treated fairly, spending all of their energies and all of their creativities condemning the action against him and defending his honor. Then they get upset when you point this out.

We had been dealing with Saddam for over 12 years. At what point did you think we (the US/UN) reached the pinnacle of success in enforcing the 16 UN resolutions and getting Iraq to become a cooperative member of the international community? What year and what action was taken to get us there?

Posted by: OttO at August 25, 2005 04:43 PM

Otto,

Here’s a transcript of Blix’s comments in March 2003. Intereference with inspections was minimal.

Inspections in Iraq resumed on the 27th of November 2002. In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties, and certainly much less than those that were faced by UNSCOM [U.N. Special Commission] in the period 1991 to 1998. This may well be due to the strong outside pressure.

Some practical matters which were not settled by the talks Dr. [Mohamed] ElBaradei and I had with Iraqi side in Vienna prior to inspections or in Resolution 1441 have been resolved at meetings, which we have had in Baghdad.

Initial difficulties raised by the Iraqi side about helicopters and aerial surveillance planes operating in the “no-fly” zones were overcome.

This is not to say that the operation of inspections is free from frictions, but at this juncture we are able to perform professional, no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance.

You go on to say:

If I’m told that the man breaking into my back door may or may not have a gun, I think the error would be to assume that he doesn’t.

What a twisted analogy. You could make that analogy if Iraq had brought troops up to our border or were in the process of attacking us. But a better analogy would be if you’re told that a guy who lives three blocks away doesn’t like you very much and that he’s been seen at the local sporting goods shop (where they sell guns). Would you burst into that guy’s home and shoot the place up for no other reason? Wait a minute. Don’t answer that one.

We had been dealing with Saddam for over 12 years. At what point did you think we (the US/UN) reached the pinnacle of success in enforcing the 16 UN resolutions and getting Iraq to become a cooperative member of the international community? What year and what action was taken to get us there?

That’s a good question. But the answers are not 2003 and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Posted by: Burt at August 25, 2005 04:56 PM

Lawnboy -

Sorry, you certainly did imply it.

Just because you inferred it doesn’t mean I implied it.

I’m sorry that some people think that they can spout these creative and non-stop criticisms of the intentions of the Bush administration and not come off sounding like they think that Saddam gone is a bad thing.

Ironically, I haven’t spouted any criticisms of the Bush Administration (creative or not) in this thread. The closest was “In short, once Bush decided to go to war, there was nothing short of Saddam’s abdication which would have prevented the war…” and that’s not a criticism. It’s an acknowledgement that the Bush Administration had come to its conclusion about what it was going to do.

I’m sorry that you can’t be bothered to try to tell me what you misread so that I can try to explain what I actually meant.

Question: If the support of France and Russia was not important, then why did everyone treat it like so when the US circumvented their obstructionism?

First, nice spin. France and Russia aren’t persuing their own national interests based on their history and constituents. No, they’re obstructionists. That word is far too popular and far too opten abused on the Right Wing these days. Just because you like your own idea doesn’t mean that people who disagree should be dismissed so lightly.

Second, there are two reasons to gain unanimous support from the Security Council: 1) Decisions from the Security Council carry the force of international law. Laws aren’t always followed, but they still have meaning. 2) Support from competent allies could have helped the war and post-war process and planning be much more successful. It would have helped us to have had them in our corner because they could have supplied expertise and manpower in planning the post-war (something that we failed at).

Your two reasons are sound, and related to my first reason given above.

However, you still have said nothing to support your central premise. What are the steps that would/could have lead from unanimous Security Council support to no war occuring? What could we reasonably have expected Saddam to have done differently if France and Russia had agreed with us? What from that list could we reasonably conclude that Washington would have considered sufficient to halt the progress towards war?

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 25, 2005 05:06 PM

Am I the only one that’s noticed that the Iraqis are more likely to agree on a constitution than the Europeans are?

Am I the only one that’s noticed that the Iraqis are going about writing and approving their constitution in a more democratic way than the Europeans are?

Very difficult times still lie ahead for the the people of Iraq, but the US has given them the chance to succeed. Now it will take great men and women to rise up in Iraq and create a new nation much as our founding fathers did.

Posted by: Dirkp at August 25, 2005 05:32 PM

OttO-
Beat those who are guilty up for corruption then. For that, those who did the wrong deserve the criticism. If we were to have found WMDs and it turned out they were turning a blind eye to that, the officials involved would deserve reprimand and we would deserve an apology.

If however, you’re trying to say that we should blame the 50 million other french for those who had their hand in the cookie jar, I’d draw the line. Calling them “Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys” does more to aid your self-esteem than it does to get the french more in line with our national interests.

You got John Gibson and the like making these horrifying comments about wishing the terrorists would strike at them. You and him forget one important fact: this culture has been through it themselves. Look up Algeria’s drive for independence. You will come to understand that we are making the mistakes in our war on terror that they made fighting to keep their colonies.

As for the UN Security Council, it just goes to show that not everybody agreed with our intelligence picture of things. Perhaps we should have been more attentive. After all, in a war on terror, we can’t afford to fight unimportant battles.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 25, 2005 05:42 PM

This posting and all of the comments I’ve read here underscore why I think everyone’s underwear is in such a twist about the validity of the war in Iraq. The bottom line is that the Americans and the Brits did the right thing for the wrong reasons, while the French and the Russians did the wrong thing for the right reasons.

The Brits and Americans deposed a vicious and brutal dictator (the right thing), but certainly exaggerated or perhaps even lied about the threat that this tyrant posed to the other nations of the world in order justify their invasion (the wrong reasons).

The Europeans were willing to tolerate and accommodate a sadist who had lost his moral authority to govern his nation long ago (the wrong thing) because they refused to go to war in the absence of a credible and direct threat to international security (the right reasons).

Thus, you get the moralists and the pragmatists disagreeing with each other about two entirely different subjects.

We have two problems here. The first is that we do not have a definition of national sovereignty that is accepted universally. Does mere statehood confer sovereignty, or are there some sort of minimal standards of permissible conduct that every government must meet in order to maintain its right to govern? If so, what are they?

Second, even if we were to establish these standards, an effective international mechanism does not exist to enforce them. Who should decide whether or not the actions of any government have abrogated its right to govern? Who should decide what punishments should be imposed upon the violators? Who should enforce those decisions and how?

Two things seem certain to me. First, no nation on Earth, not even the United States has the moral authority to act upon the world stage capriciously or unilaterally. Might does not make right. Second, the United Nations is flawed fundamentally and must be restructured or replaced. Governments can be illegitimate, and illegitimate governments should not have any influence whatsoever over the actions of legitimate governments. Statehood does not confer legitimacy ipso facto.

The world seems to be in need of an effective organization that will possess both the moral authority and military power to establish and enforce a nominal code of permissible governmental conduct.

Now, does anybody have any ideas about what that organization should look like?

Posted by: Chuck Hanrahan at August 25, 2005 05:49 PM

Chuck
Just for starters the anti-christ would be a likely head of state. The members would no doubt have the 666 on their forehead or on their palm. The rest is history.

Posted by: tom at August 25, 2005 06:59 PM

Burt,

“I’d be interested in hearing exactly what you disagree with in that speech.”

Well, mostly it raised a lot of interesting questions for me.

“Their reports testify to regular progress in the disarmament of Iraq.”

If Iraq didn’t have WMDs, then how could there have been progress in the disarmament of Iraq? What were they progressively disarming if they were already disarmed?

“Why choose division when our unity and our resolve are leading Iraq to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction?”

See there, obviously Iraq still had WMDs to get rid of, I mean, even the French say so.

Also, the butting heads is a major problem. The US says the international community is divided, because everybody didn’t do it their way. And the French say the international community is divided, because everybody didn’t do it their way. Hmmm. It looks like the US won that pissing contest.

“Before making our choice, let us weigh the consequences, let us measure the effects of our decision.”

That we should have listened to, I’ll grant. We could definitely have been better prepared for the post-war conflict.

“We all see it: In Iraq, we are resolutely moving toward completely eliminating programs of weapons of mass destruction.”

Again, there’s the French admitting there was something to eliminate. The suspicion grows.

“We already have useful information in the biological and chemical domains.”

And we see it again…

“The American and British military presence in the region lends support to our collective resolve.”

We can only imagine how much resolve it would have shown if it was the UN military presence. Maybe enough for a full confession?

“As a permanent member of the Security Council, I will say it again: France will not allow a resolution to pass that authorizes the automatic use of force.”

And thus they give Hussein the green light to obstruct as much as he may wish, as long as he appears to be at least a little cooperative.

“Indeed, the stakes transcend the case of Iraq alone.”

Right to the financial well-being of France, I suspect.

“It is true in the case of the Mideast: Can we continue to wait while acts of violence multiply?”

Yeah, why did the French insist we continue to wait while acts of violence multiplied? I really just don’t understand that.

“On the contrary, we believe that the use of force can arouse rancor and hatred, fuel a clash of identities, of cultures—something that our generation has, precisely, a prime responsibility to avoid.”

If it was done swiftly and cleanly (which Bush did not do, and I admit that readily and am quite disappointed), then peaceful rebuilding side-by-side as an international community would have healed those wounds much more quickly. After all, Germany’s our friends now, well, sort of.

“And how many victims will it bring, how many grieving families?”

Far too many, especially when it’s not done quickly and cleanly.

“No one underestimates the cruelty of this dictatorship and the need to do everything possible to promote human rights. That is not the objective of resolution 1441.”

So, where is the resolution for that? If there isn’t one, then why the hell not?

“Is it a matter of fighting terrorism? War would only increase it, and we could then be faced with a new wave of violence.”

As they say in France, “Touche!”

“Not to mention that in Iraq itself, the large number of communities and religions already represents the danger of a potential break-up.”

Again, touche. But, alas, could a united international community have given them more reason to become more united themselves, and if not, what’s the point of international unity?

“We all have the same demands: more security, more democracy.”

They forgot “more money” which is where France and the US’s interests parted company. Hmmm.

“Yes, we too want more democracy in the world. But we will achieve this objective only within the framework of a true global democracy based on respect, sharing, the awareness of a true community of values and a common destiny. And its heart is the United Nations.”

Because the United Nations is the epitome of democracy. Oh, wait. It’s not. Sorry. How exactly is the UN democratic?

“Let us make no mistake: In the face of multiple and complex threats there is no one response, but a single necessity: We must remain united.”

United yes, but only on my terms! Which “my” is right? Democracy?

“Today we must invent, together, a new future for the Middle East.”

Two points here. Since France was talking to the US, shouldn’t Middle East have a part of that invention process? Also, invent, but not realize, doesn’t actually accomplish anything, does it?

“In a few days, we must solemnly fulfill our responsibility through a vote. We will be facing an essential choice: Disarming Iraq through war or through peace. And this crucial choice implies others: It implies the international community’s ability to resolve current or future crises. It implies a vision of the world, a concept of the role of the United Nations.”

Does this failure mean the UN no longer has a role?

“It is in everyone’s interest. We must rediscover the fundamental vocation of the United Nations: to allow each of its members to assume its responsibilities in the face of the Iraqi crisis but also to seize, together, the destiny of a world in crisis and thus re-create the conditions for our future unity.”

Such pretty words. Too bad all sides were too pig-headed to live up to it.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 25, 2005 09:08 PM

tom,

Your comment reassures me that H. L. Mencken was right:

“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.”

Do you have any observations that don’t involve witches, ghosts, goblins and things that go bump in the night?

Stephanie.

Saddam didn’t have WMD, but he was trying to acquire them and obviously would have done so if he could. He wanted to convey the impression that he had them. He thought that by doing so he would be protected from deposition. He was successful in the former, but failed in the latter.

The French were obfuscating. As I said earlier, right reasons, wrong actions.

The “fundamental vocation” of the UN is based on at least four flawed premises. The first is that statehood, in and of itself, confers legitimacy. The second is that it doesn’t have an effective and compulsory enfocement mechanism. Third, it is predicated upon the principle of “one nation, one vote.” (Imagine a legislature that contained a Senate but not a House of Representatives.) Fourth, it confers an excessive degree of influence over diplomacy and international relations to the victors of WWII.

OK, OK. I’ll post my ideas about what should replace it tomorrow. (Any suggestions or recommendations would be greatly appreciated.)

Posted by: Chuck Hanrahan at August 25, 2005 10:20 PM

Just to let you guys know…

The US blocked a UN Resolution condemning Saddam Hussien when he first gassed the Kurds. Iraq was an ally against Iran back then and the White House tolerated a lot of atrocities if you’re an ally.

This crap about France is complete nonsense. The US does it too.

Posted by: Aldous at August 25, 2005 11:04 PM

Chuck,

“Saddam didn’t have WMD…The French were obfuscating.”

So many complain about Bush’s lies. They say the French had it right. Yet, the French were saying the same lies (that WMD did indeed exist, or at least they were implying it), but weren’t willing to stand up to Hussein over it. And this is diplomacy?

“OK, OK. I’ll post my ideas about what should replace it tomorrow. (Any suggestions or recommendations would be greatly appreciated.)”

Once you’ve posted it I will gladly participate.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 25, 2005 11:33 PM

Aldous,

“This crap about France is complete nonsense. The US does it too.”

And that’s the point. If we can do it and they can do it and Russia can do it and China can do it, then obviously the entire system is set up to allow way too much abuse and therefore does the international community more harm then good.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 25, 2005 11:33 PM

OttO:

>>I’m sorry that you feel that Saddam Hussein was done wrong

Lawnboy 1:

“Huh? I’ll thank you not to put such words in my mouth. I never said, implied, or thought anything like that.”

-and-

“Ironically, I haven’t spouted any criticisms of the Bush Administration (creative or not) in this thread.”

Lawnboy 2:
—-
“Iraq surrendering their WMDs? - They didn’t have any to surrender.
Iraq saying they had not WMDs? - That’s what they were doing.
Iraq allowing inspections? - That’s what they were doing.

In short, once Bush decided to go to war, there was nothing short of Saddam’s abdication which would have prevented the war, and there was no way that was happening.”
—-
“The Right has to acknowledge the reality that things are not going well in Iraq, but they can’t bear to blame the Bush Administration. Blaming the victim didn’t work too well, so now they’re onto the next step: blame the bystanders.

It’s all about accountability these days, isn’t it?”
—-
Who exactly is the “victim” in your scenario?

So let’s see, your creative ‘praise’ or neutral sentiment of the Bush adminstration criticizes him for Saddam not having wmds, not listening to and trusting Saddams claims that he didn’t have wmds, not letting Saddam control the inspections process, Bush’s apparent unreasonableness in pre-determining his removal, the questionable notion that things aren’t going well in Iraq and his lack of accountability.

Boy, I sure hope you never not criticize me! And as far as your lack of violin playing for Saddam Hussein, refer to some of the same quotes. Bush was unreasonable and untrusting, Saddam was misunderstood and wronged. Believe it or not, this is what you state when you say these things. Very clearly.

Explain to me this - if you have an opinion on pre-war Saddam, you either are going to defend him or you’re going to condemn him. There isn’t middle ground simply because it adds weight to your political stance and gives you fuel to attack the Republican president. And sorry, but to any reader who may not think that there were any valid excuses to leave Saddam in power, you are coming off as a little sad for the mans situation, at the
hands of the misguided or evil American president.

I don’t make you say it, I just point it out when you do.

Burt -

My analogy of the potentially armed man was in reference to the comment by Blix that ‘unaccounted’ should not mean ‘existing’ and I fervently disagree with that. That’s all that analogy represented, it wasn’t a recreation of the Iraq War.

Chuck -

The UN should be disbanded and it should be replaced with a league of democratic nations. No more giving countries like Syria authority over human rights or allowing closed up societies on the UNSC. Instead of being rewarded for bad behavior, the liberal mantra of the UN, a nation would have to earn its way in through promoting elections and eliminating oppression.

Would anyone oppose that and why?

Everyone -

To all who have mentioned in some way that the UNSC members were looking out for their own best interests: do we have to get into the Oil-For-Food scandal, which you may like to know, didn’t begin after the invasion? It was operating at full capacity while the French and Russians (two governments who are not coming out looking good in this) were yes, obstructing the enforcement of their own resolutions!

What I find curious is that I can’t get a liberal to defend America this passionately on nearly anything. Yet, it’s somehow wrong to criticize the Europeans, even if it’s painfully obvious that they may deserve some criticism.

*This has been a great discussion. Thanks to everyone here for giving us all something or somethings to think about*

Posted by: OttO at August 26, 2005 02:10 AM

Stephanie -

Be still my beating heart! LOL

I started reading your ‘essay’ from earlier (it was very well said) and had to wonder, who besides me would write four pages of text? It took me a while to get to the bottom to identify the culprit.

Kudos!

Posted by: OttO at August 26, 2005 02:12 AM

Who exactly is the “victim” in your scenario?

Oh, so that’s what you misunderstood. I wasn’t trying to show sympathy for Saddam, although I guess I can see how you could have interpreted that. However, I must say that you’re the first person I’ve ever encountered whose mind lept to Saddam Hussein upon seeing the word “victim.”

You see, “blaming the victim” is a common turn of phrase. I probably wasn’t as precise as I should have been, but I was simply trying to point out that the Right is seeing problems and blaming anyone but the Bush Administration for them. They blame liberals, they blame the Iraqis themselves (the “victim” in my imprecise phrase), they blame the French, etc.

No accountability.

So let’s see, your creative ‘praise’ or neutral sentiment of the Bush adminstration criticizes him for Saddam…Boy, I sure hope you never not criticize me!

Well, you’ve certainly given me ammunition if I ever chose to. Anyway, you want to see my statements about Bush having made up his mind as criticism. So be it.

not having wmds

Don’t read the news much, do you?

the questionable notion that things aren’t going well in Iraq

Questionable? Huh. Don’t read the news much, do you?

And as far as your lack of violin playing for Saddam Hussein, refer to some of the same quotes. Bush was unreasonable and untrusting, Saddam was misunderstood and wronged. Believe it or not, this is what you state when you say these things. Very clearly.

You clearly are reading that into my words, that’s for sure. I’ve looked at those quotes, and I’m still certain I wasn’t playing violins. I’m not saying Saddam was wronged. That’s your interpretation and your spin to distract from the fact that I’ve pointed out a gaping hole in your entire concept (maybe it’s not gaping, but your continual avoidance of it sure makes it seem important).

Saddam was a bad, bad man.
I’ll say it again:
Saddam was a bad, bad man. War was a direct (though not inevitable) result of his actions both domestically and internationally for decades. If he had wanted Iraq to be a peaceful, stable country, he should have changed his behavior years before.

What I’m saying (and what you’re ignoring) is that things were too late to avoid the war by the time it came back to the UNSC for a vote. Saddam believed that he was right, that he had the military force necessary to defend the country, that he had the unabridged right to rule and oppress the country, and that his people would support him. Nothing concrete would have been different if it had been a unanimous vote.

Note that I think the majority of the stubborness was on Saddam’s part in a desperate desire to hold onto power, but that he had painted himself into a corner he could escape. He painted himself into that corner. It’s still his fault. (no violins - just reality)

Bush believed that the war against Iraq was necessary (for whatever motivation, be it WMDs, 9/11, family business, oil, democracy, whatever). Since I believe that Saddam wouldn’t have made any significant changes, I don’t think that Bush would have reacted any differently.

I believe that the nature of the two leaders involved means that neither would have strayed significantly from his course whether France and Russia agreed with us or not.

Yet you ignore my pointing out this hole in logic to whine that I’m criticizing Bush and showing sympathy for Saddam (which is itself odd - if I’m saying both are stubborn, wouldn’t I be criticizing both or showing sympathy to both? Or do you just want to spin me?).

Explain to me this - if you have an opinion on pre-war Saddam, you either are going to defend him or you’re going to condemn him.

I’m condemning him. You’re the one interpreting statements of fact as statements of sympathy.

And sorry, but to any reader who may not think that there were any valid excuses to leave Saddam in power, you are coming off as a little sad for the mans situation, at the hands of the misguided or evil American president.

I’m sorry you insist on reading my words that way. I hope that you take the time to re-read what I actually said and not what you want me to have said. Try a sincere approach to this and let me know what you think.

I don’t make you say it, I just point it out when you do.

Nope. You change my words to make me have said it to distract from what I’ve actually said. However, you still have said nothing to support your central premise. What are the steps that would/could have lead from unanimous Security Council support to no war occuring? What could we reasonably have expected Saddam to have done differently if France and Russia had agreed with us? What from that list could we reasonably conclude that Washington would have considered sufficient to halt the progress towards war?

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 26, 2005 03:01 AM

…his lack of accountability…

Oh yeah, pointing out his lack of accountability isn’t a criticism of Bush. It’s a criticism of people who write things like this article.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 26, 2005 03:03 AM

…he could escape…

Should have been

…he could not escape…

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 26, 2005 03:05 AM

The weapons inspectors had not come to any solid conclusions about wmds because of Saddams interferences with the process

No OttO, there was no interference. Blix was happy with the way the inspections were going, and ElBaradei was convinced Saddam had no nuke program. If the only thing you’ve got to back up your assertion is your opinion that Blix is an “anti-war Frenchman” (he’s not French, BTW), you’re just wasting your time and ours.

BTW, Blix wrote a really good account of the process, “Disarming Iraq”.

The bottom line is that the Americans and the Brits did the right thing for the wrong reasons, while the French and the Russians did the wrong thing for the right reasons.

Sure Chuck, then you get into the moral argument over whether the ends justify the means.

In this case, lying to the American people, unilaterally invading Iraq, destroying American credibility, giving up the moral high ground, and making America less secure, is not worth the immediate removal of Saddam Hussein - who was never a threat to America.

The first is that we do not have a definition of national sovereignty that is accepted universally….

Second, even if we were to establish these standards, an effective international mechanism does not exist to enforce them.

And Iraq would have been the perfect issue to hash that out over. There’s an interesting book by Republican Richard Haass, “The Opportunity”, that covers the concept of sovereignty in a world that is growing ever more interconnected. He says,

…the world requires (and the United States would benefit from) a concept of state sovereignty that is less than absolute.

To be precise, it would benefit from a concept of state sovereignty that is contractual, one that recognizes the obligations and responsibilities as well as the rights of those who enjoy it.

Such an approach to sovereignty would communicate to governments and their leaders that the rights and protections they associate with statehood are in fact conditional and that governments and leaders would forfeit some or, in extreme cases, all of these rights and protections if they acted in contravention of certain norms or rules.

“Abuse it and lose it” would make for a good bumper sticker.

It’s an interesting concept, but I doubt countries like China, Russia, and the United States would go for it.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 26, 2005 04:55 AM

You know, without extreme nitpicking, I don’t have a problem with your response. We’ll obviously disagree on many elements of this, but you have shown me that you understand many of the perspectives that people like myself share, even if you don’t agree with how it was handled.

I can respect that.

(betcha didn’t see that one comin’)

;o)

Posted by: OttO at August 26, 2005 04:55 AM

AP -

Nice blog.

Maybe you and I aren’t so different. I think you and I are using a similar template.

Seriously though - nice blog. Do you mind if I link it on mine?

http://theottoshow.blog-city.com/

Posted by: OttO at August 26, 2005 05:01 AM

OttO,

You blame France opposition in March 2003 to an UN resolution ledding to war against Iraq for the Iraq war… happened?!

Sorry, that’s non-sense to me.
Wars happens when someone attack someone else.
US attacked. War happened. Period.

But I guess the fact that US wanted (and activily prepared) this war since start way before 1441 resolution and even before 9/11 is irrevelant to you.

But, please, be my guest, blame France and frenchies like me (Sorry, not Hans Blix. Okay, he’s european so he’s still on the wrong side of the World for you I guess) as much as you want.

If it can make you feel safer at home and/or unaccountable for Iraq war, you’re welcome.

- Philippe Houdoin

Time for me to go eat some Freedom French Fries !

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at August 26, 2005 07:26 AM

What I find curious is that I can’t get a liberal to defend America this passionately on nearly anything. Yet, it’s somehow wrong to criticize the Europeans, even if it’s painfully obvious that they may deserve some criticism.

How do you know Otto? Have you posted any allegations critical of the U.S. that dont hold water? Did the ‘liberals’ give it a pass? It would be appropriate to take the letters ‘iber’ out of liberal and replace them with ‘ogic’. Posted by: Ms Schwamp at August 26, 2005 07:45 AM

(betcha didn’t see that one comin’)

OttO, to whom was this directed? If it was directed at me, you’re right that I didn’t see it coming.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 26, 2005 07:47 AM

AP:

No OttO, there was no interference. Blix was happy with the way the inspections were going, and ElBaradei was convinced Saddam had no nuke program. If the only thing you’ve got to back up your assertion is your opinion that Blix is an “anti-war Frenchman” (he’s not French, BTW), you’re just wasting your time and ours.

UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998

* “Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation” with UN inspectors as “a flagrant violation” of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.

* Iraq must provide “immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation” with UN and IAEA inspectors.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18091.pdf

Posted by: CommonSenseAintSoCommon at August 26, 2005 09:29 AM

CommonSense,

AP and Burt were talking about the 2003 inspections, not the inspections from 1998.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 26, 2005 09:39 AM

Lawn Boy:

Thanks for setting me straight!

Seems to me that if we couldn’t trust Sadaam in 1998, and several other times, it would have been the definition of insanity to trust him in 2003.

Posted by: CommonSenseAintSoCommon at August 26, 2005 09:47 AM

And that’s an example of where common sense isn’t always right.

The issue is not whether we could trust him - no one did. The issue is whether we were able to verify what he said. We weren’t able to in 1998. The UN had much better access in 2003, and they thought that the verification was sufficient.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 26, 2005 09:55 AM

Seriously though - nice blog. Do you mind if I link it on mine?

Thanks, consider it reciprocated (Yes, I suffer from Googlelust. If anyone wants to trade links, email me: americanpundit@yahoo.com).

Posted by: American Pundit at August 26, 2005 12:09 PM

Otto writes:

“Thanks to nations like Great Britain and Australia, there are still beacons of courage in the international community, entities of moral clarity…”

Courage and moral clarity? Wow. How much moral clarity does it take to invade a country on false pretenses? And courage? The courageous (and moral) thing to do was diplomacy. Something this administration did not pursue to the level required before rushing to war.

Remer is right. Our country was wrong.

It is simply astounding that anyone can claim moral clarity as a justification for this fiasco. If moral clarity were there, 60%+ of the American people wouldn’t be opposed to the war.

Posted by: Mister Magoo at August 26, 2005 12:48 PM

Lawnboy -

Sorry, yes it was for you.

AP -

Thanks

Ms. Schwamp -

I base my observation on the fact that I’ve been doing this for a long, long time.

Phillipe -

Your leading sentence was a little chopped - perhaps you could clarify it.

I should emphasize that no where did I blame the French people - my beef is with their corrupt and self-centered government and it’s lack of conviction in upholding its SC responsibilities.

Mister Magoo -

What false pretenses?

Visit my site and scroll down towards the bottom and read my justifictations for regime change in Iraq. I think I will probably re-post it on this board in the near future:

http://theottoshow.blog-city.com/

Burt -

This is a family blog ;o) - language like that doesn’t add anything to your point or your credibility and will get your posts removed from this blog. I don’t have a problem persay with it (I can swear like a drunken sailor too) but we want to uphold some minimum of standards here. If you want to trash talk, go visit a Yahoo message board, particularly for Ted Rall or Ann Coulter.

Posted by: OttO at August 26, 2005 02:23 PM

Sorry, Otto…point taken

Posted by: Burt at August 26, 2005 02:27 PM

Thanks for understanding Burt

Posted by: OttO at August 26, 2005 03:18 PM

Perhaps we might sit down at dinner with me sometime and you can apologize to me for the comment about drunken sailors. You can use the excuse that you didn’t know any of us were still around.-Seaweed

Posted by: Pete Sirois at August 26, 2005 03:22 PM

Apologize? Moi?

Sorry, this is not an offensive-free zone. We just have certain words that aren’t allowed. It’s not even necessarily my decision (though I support it). Watchblog, who makes this board possible, sets the standards.

Don’t get me wrong - I’ve known some great drunken sailors in my time! They’re fine people.

Posted by: OttO at August 26, 2005 03:46 PM

Otto,

Your leading sentence was a little chopped - perhaps you could clarify it.

Sorry, I guess you could blame my foreign language skill ;-)

I find total non-sense that you blame France for the Iraq war *because* France opposed going to war against Iraq as UNSC permanent member.

Plus, facts (leaked UK memo for instance) everywhere show today that war was already decided by White House (secretly with UK) way before March 2003.

Besides, with “ifs”, you could alway rewrite whole History:
If France didn’t oppose US, maybe war could had been avoided. But I’ve my doubt.
If US actually listened France opposition arguments, maybe war could had been avoided too.

But we will never know, right?

I should emphasize that no where did I blame the French people - my beef is with their corrupt and self-centered government and it’s lack of conviction in upholding its SC responsibilities.

More than 80% of French people agreed and supported their government position on this issue. And most of them still does in fact, me included.
Today’s Chirac low poll number are due only to domestic or european issues, not Iraq war.
So you can blame most of the French people too.
And Spain one (hugest anti-war supporters), against their own government stance.
And many more countries people over the world.

But only France (and Russia) get under international and US medias spotlight by publicly disagreed with US. It hurt both countries relations and, far more important, UN.
That’s the real failure of France here.
Here we hope it can be an electroshock for the UNSC.

So, I agree, you can blame all of us for this.
But not for the war itself.
Our SC responsabilities was to follow the 1441 resolution to its ends: wait for inspectors’s final report. For some political/personnal agenda, your gorvernment didn’t want to wait.

France and others countries tried to warn you, tried to avoid this lies-based/forged intelligence-based war.
Unfortunatly, we failed miserably, I agree.
We’re accountable for this failure, not for the war itself. Sorry.

Warned about possible consequences, your country still decided he didn’t care/could handle them all by itself. Great. Iraq war is your. Enjoy the mess. Handle it. Blame whomever you want, if it help.

We don’t mind that much, really.

PS: sorry for bad english. I’m french, so I screw everything as always, even english ;-)

- Philippe Houdoin

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at August 26, 2005 04:11 PM

Philippe,

I’m curious. How did you as a Frenchman stumble upon WatchBlog, a site about American politics. Now I know that American politics matter for the rest of the world, but I’m curious how you came to hang out here.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 26, 2005 04:22 PM

Commonsense,
You said:“Seems to me that if we couldn’t trust Sadaam in 1998, and several other times, it would have been the definition of insanity to trust him in 2003.” Excuse me, but I thought that the inspections were precisely because we DIDN’T trust him.

OttO,
You blamed France and the UN for the deaths in Iraq when you said “every death in Iraq in the past two and a half years can be layed, partially at least, at their feet.” I find that hypocritical in extreme coming from a member of a group who constantly says that everyone should take responsibility for their actions. The Bush League invaded Iraq. France didn’t. Russia didn’t. The UN didn’t. But you are attempting to absolve the Bush administration of blame.

Q. When your blowhard neighbor does something illegal, what should you do?
A. Call the cops and let them handle it.

What you SHOULDN’T do is take the law into your own hands and demand that all your other neighbors get together, go over to the neighbor’s house, kick down the door, beat the crap out of him or her, trash the place, and leave - all for reasons you know to be false. But that is EXACTLY what the Bush League has done (except that they haven’t left yet).

Were the rationales for invading Iraq false? Consider this. In 2001, both Colin Powell and Condi Rice said Saddam had been prevented from reconstituting his weapons programs, and that the sanctions were working.

Colin Powell said this on 24 Feb 2001:

the fact that the sanctions exist — not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein’s ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq.

(emphasis added)

On 15 May 2001, Powell testified before the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Here’s part of the questions-and answers portion of Powell’s testimony:

Senator Bennett: Mr. Secretary, the U.N. sanctions on Iraq expire the beginning of June. We’ve had bombs dropped, we’ve had threats made, we’ve had all kinds of activity vis-a-vis Iraq in the previous administration. Now we’re coming to the end. What’s our level of concern about the progress of Saddam Hussein’s chemical and biological weapons programs?

Secretary Powell: The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn’t have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction — chemical, biological and nuclear — I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful… So containment, using this arms control sanctions regime, I think has been reasonably successful.

Condaleeza Rice said this on July 29, 2001 on the Larry King Show:

We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

Here’s the source for these quotes.

So my question is this. Why did the Bush League claim that Saddam had re-armed himself when they already knew he hadn’t? The answer (IMO) is that the Downing Street Memo was right when it said that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. And the policy was to invade Iraq, knowing that the WMD excuse was a fiction.

Posted by: ElliottBay at August 26, 2005 04:30 PM

OttO,

“I started reading your ‘essay’ from earlier (it was very well said) and had to wonder, who besides me would write four pages of text? It took me a while to get to the bottom to identify the culprit.”

Glad to be of service! You’ve raised an intriguing debate!!!

Posted by: Stephanie at August 26, 2005 06:13 PM

LawnBoy,

“You see, “blaming the victim” is a common turn of phrase. I probably wasn’t as precise as I should have been, but I was simply trying to point out that the Right is seeing problems and blaming anyone but the Bush Administration for them. They blame liberals, they blame the Iraqis themselves (the “victim” in my imprecise phrase), they blame the French, etc”

I am part of the Right and I do hold Bush accountable for not keeping hold of the reins after victory was declared. The post-war fighting is terribly uncontrolled, and I do hold Bush responsible for that.

What you don’t seem to get is that the Left won’t hold anyone BUT Bush responsible, and refuses to see the guilt anyone else holds for how terrible this has turned out, unless of course you’re talking about the Bush Administration!

Bush is responsible, yes, but he is not solely responsible. If you want anyone but the Left to admit anything other than that, I suggest you hold your breath. It might help. The fainting might clear the propaganda from your mind.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 26, 2005 06:20 PM

Burt (and AP, too),

“I’m not sure what your argument is here. Are you claiming that Iraq really did have WMDs? Or are you just pointing out that France thought they did.”

My point here is that, if everyone was talking about disarming Iraq there were either arms to disarm or they were lying. If France said Iraq was disarming (and thus had arms to disarm) and Blix said Iraq was disarming (and thus had arms to disarm), then why would Bush think anything other than “Iraq has WMD!” since that was what the inspectors were there to disarm?

There’s no jump in logic here. See, if you think your enemy has weapons that could wreak havoc on the people under your protection, and your friends think your enemy has weapons that could wreak havoc on the people under your protection, and the people inspecting your enemy thinks your enemy has weapons that could wreak havoc on the people under your protection, but also thinks that they (the inspectors) are finding them all, despite the fact that your enemy has a history of hiding weapons that could wreak havoc on the people under your protection, then you have two choices:

1) Trust that the inspectors will actually be able to find all these nasty weapons that your enemy has a history of hiding.
OR
2) Go over there and take the nasty weapons away from your enemy since you know you are bigger, tougher and capable of doing so.

The French suggested option 1, which is easy for them to say, since Iraq was not their enemy (as the money issue makes clear). They weren’t the targets. However, Bush chose option 2, and I support him in that. Were I the one in charge, faced with the scenario I described, then I would have too.

My questions for you, Burt (and AP), are:

1) If Iraq was disarming, where did the arms go? France? Iran? Where?

2) If Iraq wasn’t disarming, because they really didn’t have anything to disarm, then why did France and Blix lie about it?

Posted by: Stephanie at August 26, 2005 07:10 PM

Burt,

“Outside of a meaningless jab at the UN, I ask again, what exactly do you disagree with in this speech?”

The so-called meaningless jab at the UN…well, let’s see. The UN, as it stands now, is ineffective. They weren’t able to get Hussein to comply with their demands without US and Brittish troops backing them up, and yet were unwilling to put UN troops there. The UN lacks the power (or the willingness to use it) to make it’s demands stick. So, what’s the point of the demands in the first place? I don’t think this is a pointless jab at the UN, I think it’s the UN that’s pointless.

“As someone who pretends to give a damn about terrorism and the soldiers in Iraq, how dare you be glib about this point?”

I don’t pretend to care. I care a whole hell of a lot. My point is that I don’t think France gave a damn about us! To them, peace was more important then security. I strongly disagree, and obviously Bush did also. You know, I would have thought that the French would have learned that peace at all costs isn’t peace at all by now, considering their history.

“Uh, when did the U.S. ask anyone in the middle east for their opinion? Chalalbi doesn’t count.”

That was my point, Burt. Despite your insistence otherwise, I’m not Far-Right, and I’m don’t say, “Rah, rah, the US is great, we never make mistakes!” I admit our mistakes openly.

“You’d like that wouldn’t you? You’d love to have the UN be completely irrelevent.”

Explain to me…PLEASE, explain to me how the UN isn’t irrelevent if it cannot or will not (I really don’t care which it is) enforce it’s own rules!!! Please, I’m honestly begging you, explain to me how the UN is relevent! I’d love to know.

“When this administration does things that are indefensible, even by your low standards, you simply say that “both sides” are just as bad, instead of addressing the actual issue at hand.”

I didn’t say this administration has done anything indefensible, I’ve said they’ve done things wrong. JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE!!! I very much want the Bush administration to fix what they’ve done OR AT LEAST TRY!!! However, unlike you (and many others on the left side of the aisle), I don’t hold Bush or his administration solely accountable, because I live in the REAL WORLD where everyone is responsible for their own actions and actions really do have consequences.

If the UN wasn’t corrupted, if they actually had the ability and/or the courage to enforce their own resolutions, then this war wouldn’t have been necessary. And, whether you like it or not, in Bush’s mind this war was necessary and BUSH WAS IN CHARGE!

Posted by: Stephanie at August 26, 2005 07:31 PM

1) If Iraq was disarming, where did the arms go? France? Iran? Where?

This is pretty silly, Stephanie. You’re twisting yourself up in some wacky logic to defend a position that’s indefensable

Obviously, Iraq didn’t have any WMD. By March 2003, that’s what the inspectors - who had been crawling all over Iraq for months - were saying. The rest of the world bowed to reality. President Bush did not.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 26, 2005 11:33 PM

So why did France and Blix lie?

Posted by: Stephanie at August 26, 2005 11:42 PM

Phillipe -

I completely understand why you feel that way. Again, I acknowledged that my targets are the governments of these countries, not the general citizenry. But I want to address a few things:

1. I’m intimately familiar with the Downing Street Memo and it does not show anything of the sort. It specifically states that one British agents perspective while in Washington was that that the sentiments there were that war was inevitable. EVERYONE and anyone who followed the history of Saddam Hussein thought/knew that the war was inevitable! But it in no way says that the war was already decided!

I realize that my view on this subject is nothing more than a hypothetical hindsight. But I think it is just plain common sense that united cooperatiion would have rendered Saddam completely powerless. The fact is that the highest members of your government have had a long and close relationship with Saddam Hussein, and it continued illegaly through the late 90s in defiance of the UN imposed sanctions and some of those same government officials represent a large portion of the abuse of the Oil for Food program. Can you convince me that these things had no impact whatsoever on France’s position after supporting 1441? I think its safe to say it did. And that is a major part of my problem with your government and with those who continuously pretend that France was innocently looking out for it’s best interests.

Most French people supported their governments position, sure…but not for the same reasons. At least their reasons, misguided in my opinion, were sincere and valid.

At least we seem to agree that the UN needs a facelift. Would you agree that if it is determined that France ‘sold’ its veto to Saddam (in an effort to hide its scandals and protect its financial ties) that France should not only have it’s veto power removed, but should be removed entirely from the UNSC?

As far as SC responsibilities - they were to see to it that 1441 was enforced. I understand that everyone wants to pretend that Bush just woke up one day and decided that the inspectors were done, and launched the invasion. That’s not how it went.

Some on the board here keep quoting Hans Blix and they conveniently only represent half of his views at the time. Keeping in mind that Blix was openly opposed to the war in any context, Blix stated REPEATEDLY in the months following the invasion that Iraq was not providing them with what they wanted and he labeled it as ‘even more significant’ than the progress they had made.

Saddam could have honestly provided and declared 90% of his past/present wmds or programs but never account for X, Y and Z and that alone would make the inspections pointless and useless. To be effective, it had to be all or nothing and it certainly wasn’t all.

The Iraq regime provided a report, something incredible like 30,000 pages and did not provide specific answers to what happened to known and large quantities of bio and chemical materials, not to the mention banned missiles that were found but not declared. I paid very close attention to this whole circus and the sentiment among the inspectors was that the inspections were ‘working’ but that Saddam was making things difficult, and he was directly warned not to do that. They (Iraqi officials) obstructed progress, they postponed certain inspection demands to certain sites, they tapped the hotel phone lines of where the inspectors were staying, blocked roads, prevented confidential interviews from taking place etc. The point of the inspections wasn’t to get Saddam’s public opinion on his wmds, it was to prevent him from possessing them, and that is a bit difficult when he can’t tell you what he did with what he had.

The inspection game could have gone on for another 12 years and it wouldn’t have mattered if Saddam was going to play games of deciept and interference. And sorry folks. He was doing exactly that! Saddam said himself in November of 2002 to an Egyptian magazine that what he needed to do was to wait the Americans and the Brits out, that public sentiment and internal divisiveness would get the aggressors off his back. ‘

He knew this. He stated it. Why is it so hard for people here to accept this? If his assumptions were right, then why in the world is it so unreasonable to assume that if the opposite happened, if the world had stood together as they should have, he would have had to change his tune?

I stand by my condemnation of these UNSC members.

Posted by: OttO at August 27, 2005 04:33 AM

Stephanie,

However, Bush chose option 2, and I support him in that. Were I the one in charge, faced with the scenario I described, then I would have too.

When do you propose we invade North Korea? Under your scenario, they certainly fit the bill and are far more dangerous.

2) If Iraq wasn’t disarming, because they really didn’t have anything to disarm, then why did France and Blix lie about it?

I can’t tell if you are being honest here or really don’t understand. The process of disarming didn’t just include handing over all