November 01, 2004
The Case for Invading Iraq
When President Bush made his case for the invasion of Iraq, he unfortunately did so with little regard on making the full case. This is one problem I have with his administration, not that he couldn�t have, but that he didn�t. His advisors, his intelligence, the intelligence of our friends and years of knowledge about what was going on in Iraq led him to believe that the case was a �Slam Dunk� as has been often repeated.
So obvious are all of the reasons why to him, it appears that the president feels that the case has already been made and has not gone the extra mile to convince the most partisan �Bush Haters� and hard core democrats that make up an estimated 36% of the American people (based on a recent Rasmussen poll that found 36% of the American voters had already decided to vote democratic before a candidate was selected).
This essay attempts to make that case. Some of you will agree with it, some will not. There are a lot of wild claims out there, some I have been investigating but have not come to a conclusion on. These claims are not going to be listed here (no ties to al Qaeda will be represented), all I am going to list here are things I am confident about based on what I�ve gathered over the past several years, even when I was supporting and urging Bill Clinton to take on this course of action 6 years ago.
Human Rights Violations
This is a well agreed upon area of disagreement with Iraq under the leadership of Saddam Hussein. For those unfamiliar with the extent of the violations, this is from the UN condemnation of Iraq�s Human Rights Violations in April of 2001, sponsored by the EU.
(a) The systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law by the Government of Iraq, resulting in an all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based discrimination and widespread terror
(b) The suppression of freedom of thought, expression, information, association, assembly and movement through fear of arrest, imprisonment, execution, expulsion, house demolition and other sanctions
(c) The repression faced by any kind of opposition, in particular the harassment and intimidation of and threats against Iraqi opponents living abroad and members of their families
(d) The widespread use of the death penalty in disregard of the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations safeguards
(e) Summary and arbitrary executions, including political killings and the continued so-called clean-out of prisons; the use of rape as a political tool, as well as enforced or involuntary disappearances, routinely practiced arbitrary arrests and detention, and consistent and routine failure to respect due process and the rule of law
(f) Widespread, systematic torture and the maintaining of decrees prescribing cruel and inhuman punishment as a penalty for offences
As for details, I�ll list a few of the more egregious of them. There are a large number that I won�t be including for space reasons.
(a) public beheadings of women who were accused of being prostitutes, which took place in front of family members, including children. The heads of the victims were publicly displayed near signs reading, "For the honor of Iraq.". 130 documented and many more suspected cases.
(b) human rights violations directed against children. Children, as young as 5 years old, were recruited into the "Ashbal Saddam," or "Saddam's Cubs," and indoctrinated to adulate Saddam Hussein and denounce their own family members. The children were also subjected to military training, which includes cruelty to animals. Parents of children were executed if they object to this treatment, and in some cases, the children themselves were imprisoned.
(c) Full political participation at the national level was restricted only to members of the Arab Ba'ath Socialist Party, which constituted only 8% of the population. Therefore, it was impossible for Iraqi citizens to change their government.
(d) Iraqi citizens were not allowed to assemble legally unless it is to express support for the government. The Iraqi government controlled the establishment of political parties, regulates their internal affairs and monitors their activities.
(e) Police checkpoints on Iraqi's roads and highways prevented ordinary citizens from traveling abroad without government permission and expensive exit visas. Before traveling, an Iraqi citizen had to post collateral. Iraqi women could not travel outside of the Country without the escort of a male relative.
(f) The activities of citizens living inside Iraq who received money from relatives abroad were closely monitored.
(g) In 1988, the Hussein regime began a campaign of extermination against the Kurdish people living in Northern and Southern Iraq. The attacks resulted in the death of at least 50,000 (some reports estimate as many as 100,000 people), many of them women and children. A team of Human Rights Watch investigators determined, after analyzing eighteen tons of captured Iraqi documents, testing soil samples and carrying out interviews with more than 350 witnesses, that the attacks on the Kurdish people were characterized by gross violations of human rights, including mass executions and disappearances of many tens of thousands of noncombatants, widespread use of chemical weapons including Sarin, mustard gas and nerve agents that killed thousands, the arbitrary imprisoning of tens of thousands of women, children, and elderly people for months in conditions of extreme deprivation, forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of villagers after the demolition of their homes, and the wholesale destruction of nearly two thousand villages along with their schools, mosques, farms, and power stations.
(h) In June of 1994, the Hussein regime in Iraq established severe penalties, including amputation, branding and the death penalty for criminal offenses such as theft, corruption, currency speculation and military desertion.
(i) In April of 2003, CNN admitted that it withheld information about Iraq torturing journalists and Iraqi citizens that were interviewed by CNN in the 1990s. According to CNN, the channel kept the information secret because they were afraid that their journalists would be killed if they reported it.
-- http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/H/Human-rights-violations-in-Iraq.htm
Other links of atrocities:
Amnesty International
Human Rights Watch
Iraq Foundation
US State Department
Physicians for Human Rights
I think that most agree that the Human Rights violations that occurred during Hussein�s rule were atrocious. Some argue that other countries are also Human Rights violators and that this by itself is not a reason to invade a sovereign country. I would challenge this, first that there was another country this cruel in its violations and on such a scale, but also that we should turn a blind eye to anyone suffering at this level.
That the UN refused to act, as it is refusing to act in the Sudan Genocide, makes me think that perhaps a new way of looking at and dealing with these issues needs to come about. If you had asked any human rights organization for a list of the top 5 violators in control of a county in 2001 my guess is that Iraq and Afghanistan would have been in that list. This is based on human rights organizations listing the number of countries committing each different kind of violations; Iraq and Afghanistan were committing nearly if not all of them.
State Support of Terrorism
First, this is the list of wounded and killed by groups supported by Iraq:
� Abu Nidal Organization (ANO) � Killed 407 (10 Americans) and Wounded 788 (58 Americans)
� Ansar Al-Islam � Killed 114 (1 American) and Wounded 16
� Arab Liberation Front � Killed 4 and Wounded 6
� Hamas � Killed 224 (17 Americans) and Wounded 1,445 (30 Americans)
� Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) � Killed 44 and Wounded 327 (2 Americans)
� Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) � Killed 17 (7 Americans) and Wounded 43 (1 American)
� Palestine Liberation Front � Killed 1 (1 American) and Wounded 42
For a total of 811 people killed (36 American) and 2,667 people wounded (91 American). The source was the U.S. Department of State, Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, �1968 - 2003: Total Persons Killed/Wounded�International and Accepted Incidents.� Figures. It was prepared for National Review author Deroy Murdock.
Hussein�s hospitality toward these mass murderers directly violated United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, which prohibited him from granting safe haven to or otherwise sponsoring terrorists. We also know from the 9/11 report that there was a connection to al Qaeda, though we are unsure (no smoking gun) of what level that relationship may have developed into. However, their communications that continued to exist up to and beyond 2001 are troublesome to many. When looking at the amount of terror that they did support over the years, in both the 80�s and 90�s, it is not hard for many to suspect there was more than just a passing relationship.
Some of the high ranking terrorists that Iraq had links to are:
� Abu Abbas. Abbas masterminded the October 7�9, 1985, Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking in which Abbas�s men shot passenger Leon Klinghoffer, a 69-year old Manhattan retiree, then rolled him, wheelchair and all, into the Mediterranean. Abbas briefly was in Italian custody at the time, but was released that October 12 because he possessed an Iraqi diplomatic passport. After 2000, Abbas resided in Baghdad, still under Saddam Hussein�s protection.
� Khala Khadr al Salahat, a member of the ANO. Al Salahat and Nidal furnished Libyan agents the Semtex bomb that destroyed Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, on December 21, 1988, killing 259 on board and 11 on the ground.
� Abu Nidal. As the Associated Press�s Sameer N. Yacoub reported on August 21, 2002, the Beirut office of the ANO said that he entered Iraq �with the full knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities.� Nidal�s attacks in 20 countries killed 407 people and wounded 788 more, the U.S. State Department calculates. Among other atrocities, an ANO-planted bomb exploded on a TWA airliner as it flew from Israel to Greece on September 8, 1974. The jet was destroyed over the Ionian Sea, killing all 88 people on board.
� Abdul Yasin. �U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam�s hometown, which shows Iraq gave Mr. [Abdul Rahman] Yasin both a house and a monthly salary.� The Indiana-born, Iraqi-reared Yasin had been charged in August 1993 for mixing the chemicals in the bomb that exploded beneath One World Trade Center, killing six and injuring 1,042 individuals. Indicted by federal prosecutors as a conspirator in the WTC bomb plot, Yasin was on the FBI�s Most-Wanted Terrorists list. ABC News confirmed, on July 27, 1994, that Yasin had returned to Baghdad, where he traveled freely and visited his father�s home almost daily.
� In addition to these four high level terrorists, the US received knowledge of three separate terrorist training camps in Iraq, including Salman Pak, which Khidir Hamza, Iraq�s former nuclear weapons chief and Sabah Khodada, an former Iraqi Army Captain, report was used for training of assassinations, explosions and hijackings. Khodada, who worked at Salman Pak, said, �Training includes hijacking and kidnapping of airplanes, trains, public buses, and planting explosives in cities . . . how to prepare for suicidal operations.� Khodada added, �We saw people getting trained to hijack airplanes. . . . They are even trained how to use utensils for food, like forks and knives provided in the plane.� A map of the camp that Khodada drew from memory for Frontline closely matches satellite photos of Salman Pak, further bolstering his credibility.
-- list compiled by author Deroy Murdock
According to State Department reports on terrorism, before the removal of Saddam's regime, Iraq was one of seven state sponsors of terror. So far we have a top human rights violator and one of 7 states sponsoring terrorism.
WoMD and the UN Inspectors � Paper Tiger, Hidden Weapons
No doubt that this is where much of the contention between the two parties exists now, though I think that the first two sections of the essay were overwhelmingly screaming for intervention in Iraq. However, we have learned a lot since 2002 about what was going on in Iraq regarding WoMD and what was not.
To put it simply, the world was duped by Saddam Hussein for reasons that only he can give us, though we can surely derive some exercise from our own investigations.
The most recent of those investigations was the Final Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraqi WMD.
We now know that Saddam�s main goal was to get rid of the UN sanctions balanced with his intention to preserve Iraq�s intellectual capital for WoMD and a need to not �lose face� in the eyes of the international community. He wanted to recreate Iraq�s WoMD after the sanctions were removed and focus on a nuclear weapons program. In this respect he continued to keep as much of the knowledge and materials that could aid in starting these programs up around.
Saddam felt that the sanctions would be lifted in 1998. Indeed, after April 1998 when chief arms inspector Richard Butler refused to certify that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have been destroyed, Saddam became more and more uncooperative with the inspections team, and on Oct. 31, 1998, Iraq announced it would cease interaction with UNSCOM and halt all the organization's activities inside Iraq.
From this point forward, without any inspection team in the country and the situation as it developed, there was most likely no way that the UN would lift sanctions on Iraq while Saddam was in power. There would be too many questions and no way of knowing what happened during the time inspectors were not in the country. Further, Saddam never, at any single point before the invasion started, gave full and immediate access to all of Iraq and its citizens, even when ordered to by UN Resolution 1441. Hans Blix felt that with more time that they could resolve all of the questions that were raised about Iraq�s WoMD programs and arsenal, but admitted in his briefings to the security council that Iraq had still not accepted the notion of full and immediate disclosure.
This is where we were before the invasion. Some people saying that Iraq had fulfilled its requirements to the sanctions previous to 1441, some saying that they hadn�t, with no way to find out without the disclosure that Hussein was unwilling to provide. Even that may not have been enough for the US, England and others. It was a bit of a stalemate that had lasted for 4 years since the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq.
Only 3 courses of action could have taken place with these facts.
� Acceptance that enough of the resolutions had been met and lift the sanctions.
� Admit that Iraq had run out of time to provide full and immediate disclosure and continue with the course of action that the Clinton placed in law, the removal of the Hussein regime.
� Continue with inspections and sanctions, keeping an eye on Iraq and attempting to continue containment.
Most people feel that the first option was not acceptable, but I admit that a large number of people thought that it was the best way to go. They are fine to have that opinion, but it is one that I disagreed with because of the actions of the Iraqi government in the past. There was no way to know what had been hidden, Hussein had gone through a lot of trouble to block and hide as much as possible during the inspections and the loss of inspectors on the ground for such a long time provided too much time for Iraq to hide, move or even develop further all kinds of WoMD, as well as conventional weapons.
Of course, the second option is the one that we took. In 1998, the Clinton White House, along with support and urging from the leading members of the Senate (including John Kerry and Hillary Clinton) put into law that the focus of US policy with Iraq would be for a change in leadership in the country. Through several means, the US supported the removal of Saddam Hussein from power, either through revolt or the UN.
Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.
Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.
-- emphasis added mine
Subsequent actions failed to make this happen. While running for election in 2000, then Governor Bush ran on the assurance that if elected he would do something about Iraq to bring about this change in leadership. Good to his word, within days of being inaugurated he gives Iraqi opposition groups authority to use U.S. aid within Iraq.
When the 9/11 bombings occurred, it was not immediately obvious who carried out the attack. Some in the administration, sold on the notion that Iraq had been involved in the first WTC bombings as well as al Qaeda, called upon the president to take immediate action against Iraq. President Bush weighed his options and after it was clear that it was al Qaeda who performed the attack, he focused on that group and Afghanistan who was giving the group safe haven.
However, the terrorist ties that were known about and the suggestions that had been gathered through intelligence made it clear that Iraq was a state sponsor of terror as well as Afghanistan. As we now know from the previous section, it was one of seven such countries, six now that Afghanistan was no longer in Taliban control. At this point the following things are taken together:
� Iraq had been evading UN sanctions for nearly 12 years, the last 4 having events associated with it that led us to call for the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, a policy made law by Bill Clinton.
� Iraq was one of the largest human rights violators in the world. Killing, maiming and raping its citizens without impunity, no recognizable rule of law other than might and the use of chemical weapons on its own citizens prevented any uprising or ability to move forward with societal grown.
� Iraq was a large supporter of international terrorism. In our war on terror, we are calling upon the end of all state sponsored terrorism, the list of people killed and injured because of known support from Iraq led the US to realize that Iraq was a danger to the US and the world in general.
It was under these facts that the United States and a collection of like-minded countries set about to remove Saddam Hussein from power and remove the threat that he created.
The Argument Against Further Sanctions
There was a third option, allowing the sanctions to continue until we could be SURE that Iraq was devoid of any WoMD or programs to acquire such. Some argue that this could have been accomplished in three months, most notably Hans Blix. He argued this while admitting that Iraq was not accepting the notion of full and complete disclosure and the fact that his two previous predecessors could not complete the task in the previous twelve years. I am one of those not convinced that it would have taken �just three months�. As a result of this, let�s look at a longer application of sanctions.
In the twelve years that sanctions existed previously, it was known that the sanctions had crippled the country�s economic infrastructure and had contributed to a deteriorating economic situation, increased unemployment, rising malnutrition and mortality levels and widespread corruption. In 1999, UNICEF estimated that sanctions had contributed to the deaths of some 500,000 children under the age of five. In addition to the deaths as a result of the sanctions themselves, civilians were also dying at the hands of US/UK planes as they enforced the no-fly zone.
The sanctions, as has been reported, had resulted in even less restrictions than originally thought
Although Saddam had reluctantly accepted the UN�s Oil for Food (OFF) program by 1996, he soon recognized its economic value and additional opportunities for further manipulation and influence of the UNSC Iraq 661 Sanctions Committee member states. Therefore, he resigned himself to the continuation of UN sanctions understanding that they would become a �paper tiger� regardless of continued US resolve to maintain them.
Throughout sanctions, Saddam continually directed his advisors to formulate and implement strategies, policies, and methods to terminate the UN�s sanctions regime established by UNSCR 661. The Regime devised an effective diplomatic and economic strategy of generating revenue and procuring illicit goods utilizing the Iraqi intelligence, banking, industrial, and military apparatus that eroded United Nations� member states and other international players� resolve to enforce compliance, while capitalizing politically on its humanitarian crisis.
One aspect of Saddam�s strategy of unhinging the UN�s sanctions against Iraq, centered on Saddam�s efforts to influence certain UN SC permanent members, such as Russia, France, and China and some nonpermanent (Syria, Ukraine) members to end UN sanctions. Under Saddam�s orders, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) formulated and implemented a strategy aimed at these UNSC members and international public opinion with the purpose of ending UN sanctions and undermining its subsequent OFF program by diplomatic and economic means. At a minimum, Saddam wanted to divide the five permanent members and foment international public support of Iraq at the UN and throughout the world by a savvy public relations campaign and an extensive diplomatic effort.
Another element of this strategy involved circumventing UN sanctions and the OFF program by means of �Protocols� or government-to-government economic trade agreements. Protocols allowed Saddam to generate a large amount of revenue outside the purview of the UN. The successful implementation of the Protocols, continued oil smuggling efforts, and the manipulation of UN OFF contracts emboldened Saddam to pursue his military reconstitution efforts starting in 1997 and peaking in 2001. These efforts covered conventional arms, dual-use goods acquisition, and some WMD-related programs.
And, even with these sanctions in place, the containment we were applying to them, they were still a major supporter of terrorism in the world. What would make anyone believe that the sanctions, already labeled as the most invasive sanctions suffered by a country in history, could have been made even stronger without killing more and more innocent Iraqis? Not only because of the sanctions, but the inaction of the world community on the Human Rights violations?
Unfortunately, no one had an �end game� in Iraq that would result in anything other than further distrust of the Iraq government, further death of Iraqi citizens and the continuation of supporting terrorism on a global scale. Even John Kerry.
Now we have one. It is not pretty and has not been run as well as I think, as a disabled veteran, it could have been run. But the simple truth is that taking this action was the only way to put an end to the nightmare that has been brewing in Iraq for a dozen years and only now will the Iraqi citizens have any hope of self-rule and freedom, something they could never see possible with a Hussein leadership in control of the country.
John Kerry knows this. He supported the removal of Hussein from power in 1998. He is also not disputing that the Iraq invasion was the wrong thing to do, only that he would have worked harder to get more countries on our side through the UN, something that many feel was impossible especially considering what we now know of the Oil for Food scandal and its implications.
Both republicans and democrats agreed that an Iraq without Hussein in power was the only resolution to the situation there. However, few were unwilling to do what was needed done in order to make this happen. President Bush, knowing that this would quite possibly cost him re-election in 2004, took the actions that he felt needed taken in order to have a hope of a stabilized, free Iraq in the near future. An Iraq that was no longer supporting terrorist activities and one that could deal with the international community going into the future with respect and honor. I believe that by the end of the decade, you will see an Iraq that is stronger than any could have hoped it would be.
And for those reasons, I believe that it was well worth it. As I have once heard as an answer to the question �Why does the US feel that it has to be the World�s Police?�, the reason is simple. We are the only ones who are willing, as a country, to sacrifice ourselves for the protection and betterment of others whether it helps us out in the long run or not. I never want to lose that mindset and close in upon ourselves in an isolationist manner as we have in the past. I hope that our country as a whole never does. Only through this belief, this conviction, can we help make the world a better place for everyone to live in, not just the lucky few who live in a currently civilized society.
Posted by Rhinehold at November 1, 2004 12:46 AMI agree 100 percent, Rhinehold.
So when do we invade China, North Korea, Syria, Iran, Turkey, and those other dispiclble sorts?
Posted by: Greg at November 1, 2004 01:18 AMI feel that the pressure is starting to be applied on Iran and North Korea. Remember, we did attempt a few years of diplomacy in Iraq, though I doubt we wait much longer with Iran and North Korea because of their unwillingness to move towards following international mandates for behavior.
Of course, that all depends on if Kerry wins or not, I suppose. Will his argument that we should not have acted in Iraq (or is he saying we should have?) cause these other countries to feel that for four years they have free reign, much as North Korea felt it did during the Clinton administration? Kerry already wants to negotiate directly with North Korea, a path that has already failed once.
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 1, 2004 01:28 AMSo you are all for World War III, I see. Perhaps Kerry will have to reconsider the draft when he wins…if he pursues your policy.
My point was..Yes Sadam was a very bad man, very evil government, Bad, Bad , boo hiss.
Now please explain why it was in America’s interest to invade and occupy Iraq for the next ten years?
Posted by: Greg at November 1, 2004 02:04 AMAs I said “We are the only ones who are willing, as a country, to sacrifice ourselves for the protection and betterment of others whether it helps us out in the long run or not. I never want to lose that mindset and close in upon ourselves in an isolationist manner as we have in the past. I hope that our country as a whole never does. Only through this belief, this conviction, can we help make the world a better place for everyone to live in, not just the lucky few who live in a currently civilized society.”
I suppose I feel that when injustice is not turned back by talking, sanctions or threats, there are times when we have to go in and forcibly stop them. Hopefully, when countries doing this see that this will be their fate, they will join the civilized community and force will no longer be needed.
Until then, the US can be hated for doing what needs done while the rest of the world, knowing it needs done but unwilling to do it, can view us as the lone cowboys. I don’t particularly mind, to be honest.
As for ‘WWIII’, you don’t think we are already there whether we want to be or not? A large group of people, including several countries, are attacking other countries, including the US, Italy, Japan, Egypt, Israel, etc and doing so with suicide bombers, car bombs and other terrorist means.
How do you propose to stop it then? Stick your head in the sand like we did the last two world wars and hope it doesn’t affect us? The Lucitania was already sunk, Greg!
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 1, 2004 02:13 AMRhinehold,
At the very least, I’d like to commend you for efficiently gathering and concisely listing in Bullet Point form, nearly all of the distortions, half-truths, exaggerations, tenuous connections and other leaps in logic one needs, to argue the Revisionist Rationalization of the Invasion of Iraq.
I will be considerate and leave some of the wealth of arguable assertions you’ve made to others, but two points I will dispute.
When it comes to the Duelfer Report, you’re obviously following the White House’s ‘interpretation’ of the findings. However, when you are trying to re-manufacture a ‘grave and looming threat’ to America, that enemies immediate intentions should not be describe with a future tense verb (‘is planning to’), but also in an imperative tense and not an indicative tense (‘should have’, ‘will have’).
The case for an Invasion was successful only by the assertion Saddam had WMDs’, and Britain had only a tentative window of 45 minutes if we did not act. In every speech by Bush, Rumsfeld and Powell, this supposed overwhelming evidence accounted for 90% percent, if not the sum total of their argument. Evidence of Saddam’s atrocities rarely turned into cable news sound bites or the evening news coverage. Without the threat of WMDs’, the American people would give Bush no such mandate.
Please make the argument Rhinehold, that solely with the documented evidence of brutality and genocide committed by Saddam, you could convince a soldier’s parents to send him/her to Iraq?
We now know with absolute certainty that every possible site containing significant amounts of dangerous conventional weapons and explosives, had been inspected, documented, inventoried, tagged and sealed by IAEA inspectors, and said whereabouts and findings given to the Bush administration. If there were additional discoveries of similar materials (insignificant in comparison), 3 months would be more than sufficient a period to conclude Saddam was far from the exaggerated threat, we feared.
However, such a move would only result from a closer and more discerning interpretation of flawed intelligence evidence, not filtered through a neo-Con cabal anxious to finally try out it’s chicken hawk think tank model of rebuilding the Middle East, in America’s image.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at November 1, 2004 02:54 AMRhinehold,
You conveniently forgot to mention that the US supported Saddam Hussien WHEN he gassed the Iranians and Kurds. The US went so far as to block a UN Security Council Resolution condemning it. The United States has a very long and well established history of hypocrisy in this regard. Does the name Marcos, Suharto, Noriega and The Shah ring a bell? The US is supporting the Pakistani Dictator right now in fact.
All this stuff about the US “Freeing People” is so much crap. You helped Saddam when he was an ally and deposed him when he was an enemy. You did the same thing to Noriega. I have no doubt you will depose the Saudi Royal Family too if they became unusable but for now they are US “Allies”.
Aldous.
Posted by: Aldous at November 1, 2004 03:06 AMBert,
I assume you were not for option 2, which option did you support? Option 1 or 3?
Option 1 meant eventually leaving Iraq to Hussein with no sanctions, free to continue his Human Right violations and kill/rape/torture thousands and supporting his terrorists friends. Or wait, according to you he didn’t do those things, right? So he was this peace-loving hippie that we all shouldn’t have treated so badly?
Option 2 meant leaving the sanctions in place, those sanctions killing thousands of children and still not preventing Hussein from committing human rights violations or supporting and harboring terrorists (which you say didn’t happen?)
Which one did you support?
Also, I assume you are voting for Nader then? Or Banarik? They are the only candidates that are saying that the invasion shouldn’t have taken place at all. Kerry supported it, though he would have liked to have had more international support and/or given more time to inspectors before finally invading (or by some miracle Hussein decided to change his behavior).
I am guessing it’s not Badnarik, so we can count on your vote for Nader tomorrow then?
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 1, 2004 03:25 AMRhinehold, your arguments, from your perspective of wanting to justify the invasion in a way that leaves American integrity and honor intact, are well laid out. They however, have no validity for the rest of the international community. They also lack validity from approximately half the country of Americans who believe the costs were justified only for the reasons Bush initially gave, and now that those reasons are not valid, the costs for our involvement in Iraq, are also not valid.
I respect your perspective and believe it is noble to continue to justify in your own mind and for others who will accede, that the U.S. did not err in going into Iraq when and how we did. But that is largely water under the bridge, we went, most of the initial premises used to justify going turned out to be invalid, and most people in the world have already made up their mind about whether it was an appropriate act or not.
The big question now before Americans, as it was in Viet Nam, how long and how much American resources should we spend in Iraq. What is the benchmark for when our job is done? When do we say that American lives are more important than Iraqi’s lives, or freedom? You would seem to say America is willing to spend its youth on any battlefield where freedom does not exist. Yet, you know full well that was not true in the 1970’s. And will not be true in Iraq at some point.
Therefore, a clear and well defined exit strategy with goals that are clearly and realistically achievable and within OUR control to bring about are mandatory, if we are to avoid WASTING American lives as we did in Viet Nam. The term ‘wasted’ (for killing) was coined during Viet Nam I believe. We should not waste American lives in Iraq. But our President has not shown a willingness or capacity to establish that exit strategy that is within OUR control to achieve. And that is a frightening proposition.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 1, 2004 03:42 AMMy favorite part was when you said “There are a lot of wild claims out there, some I have been investigating but have not come to a conclusion on. These claims are not going to be listed here (no ties to al Qaeda will be represented)” and then proceeded to make dodgy Michael Moore-esque insinuations and vague speculations about Iraq and al Qaeda.
Posted by: anon. at November 1, 2004 04:28 AMSorry, Anon. I didn’t think that repeating what the 9/11 commission found was ‘dodgy Michael Moore-esque insinuations and vague speculations’.
I should have been more clear and said “I wouldn’t discuss Iraq and 9/11 links or any arguement for a working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.” I really thought we would have gotten past the ‘no links whatsoever’ with the findings of the comission, but apparently we haven’t.
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 1, 2004 04:37 AMAgain Rhinehold,
You prove how you can only make your case by exaggerations and claiming things I clearly never said.
This emotive outpouring of compassion and concern for the Iraqi people - now your sole justification for the invasion - is so transparently disingenuous, especially from neo-Cons who have gone to the extent of criticizing and demonizing Amnesty International, as a partisan adversary. By the way, they also have a long list of places where the same kind of atrocities are being committed. Are they on your radar?
Until your first and best justification for the Invasion got shot full of holes by no WMDs’, Richard Clarke, the 9/11 Commission and the Duelfer Report, your side did not give a flying f**k about the treatment of the Iraqis, until politically necessary.
And, contrary to the ideological absolute of you Bush supporters, I will vote for John Kerry although I disagree with his stance on the Iraq War. A worse case scenario would be similar to abandoning my Conservative principles by allowing a run up of a huge deficit, and signing off on the biggest expansion of government spending, in history.
Yes, I believe we should get out of Iraq as soon as possible. But, I’m aware that is totally unacceptable to a majority of stubborn Americans who will not accept defeat, rather they supported the Invasion or not.
So, for now I will defer to the decision of a pragmatic leader who actually knows conflict, personally. Who, by his election as President, will immediately open up numerous more avenues and options for salvaging Iraq, and bringing focus to our war on Terrorism.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at November 1, 2004 04:55 AMBert,
First, it is ironic that you accuse me of claiming you said things you never said. Then you go on to label me a ‘neo-con’ and supporter of Bush who didn’t care about the Iraqi people before.
Which is interesting considering:
1) I’m writing in the 3rd Party column because I am not a Republican or Democrat but a Libertarian. I also state in the article I wrote that I was upset with the Bush administration on how they ‘sold’ the war and how they are running it now.
2) I also stated in the article that I was pushing the Clinton administration to do something more about the problems in Iraq, before he finally agreed to support regime change in 1998. I have been trying to get something done about Iraq since the mid 90’s when it was clear that they would not live up to their cease-fire agreements, they continued to support Hammas and other information about their terrorist support was coming out and their human rights violations would not end.
3) I’ve never once put down Amnesty International, I support their efforts and always have. I also said in the article that I was further upset that nothing was being done about the Sudan Genocide, speaking of ‘other places on the radar’. If you want to get into human rights violations, I’m game.
4) You again must not have read the article in full, I detailed 3 reasons why we went into iraq, one of them was Human Rights. The other two, in case you missed it, was support of terrorism and refusing to provide full and unfettered access to determine if the country had WoMD or not, something that we may never have been able to prove while Hussein was in power. To assume he didn’t, when so many questions were unanswered, was too dangerous in my mind. I assume not yours, you were sure there were no WoMD long before anyone else suspected it, right? (Remember, in 1998 and again in 2002, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Kennedy, etc all were sure there were some WoMD in Iraq) Hindsight is like a warm blanket.
5) You never answered my question. If you didn’t support the action, you must have supported one of the other two options I presented. Which one did you support? Removing the sanctions since there were no WoMD and you knew it all along or keeping the sanctions on and killing thousands of children in Iraq?
Basically, it sounds like you didn’t read the article at all.
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 1, 2004 05:16 AMhow can anyone use words like “we” to discribe fighting for oil fields. The “we” have been sent to protect the friends of Bush.
No one in the USA has any interest in the middle east unless they do business there.
Was Saddam a threat to the people of America, NO.
It is up to the people of these countries to remove a bad leader or otherwise we will end up, like we often do, on the wrong side and for the wrong resons.
Too many good men and women are dying for the fat cats in tall towers.
Chris
Rhinehold:
I must ask you to cease and desist from the use of facts to bolster your argument. Your use of the 911 Commission report is simply unacceptable—-you should know the 911 Commission report can only be mined for those comments that are negative towards President Bush. Any comments that help President Bush were obviously included by Republican operatives.
David Remer is absolutely correct in his assessment of your writing. How dare you show that Bush was correct in his decision. David’s case is brilliant: It doesnt matter if you are proved to be right. What matters is how you present your argument initially.
Lets not worry about the fact that despite our best intel efforts, we couldn’t know what Saddam truly had in his arsenal. Since we DIDNT know fully the extent of his evil, we should have stopped at once. That we NOW know is of no value.
Let’s all vote for John Kerry, who insists that under his guidance we might still have taken Saddam Hussein out. Hmmmm, would that have been the wrong war, or would that be being tough on terror—-ah hell, you decide. Isnt Kerry the one who when asked if he would have removed Hussein from power answered definitively, “Darn right, we MIGHT have!!”
Well, the good news is that the election is tomorrow night. So, only one more day until the Democratic whining about right wing conspiracies and voting fraud begin.
Posted by: jeobagodonuts at November 1, 2004 07:36 AMRhinehold,
Although I commend you on trying to find support for Bush’s lack of leadership in dealing properly with Saddam, the truth is that we had a just reason for forcing Saddam out of power.
After 9/11, Our Country made it clear that no country nor individual who supported terrorism would be held accountable. Therefore, when Saddam made the statement that he would pay $10,000.00 for each suicide bomber in 2001, we had the right to take him out.
Although some in the Middle East would of looked at the US attack on Iraq as supporting Isreal, the fact still remains that Saddam threatened Our Country with suicide bombers. If Bush would of utilized Powell and the fight of the Palastine, he could of got the support of the world. Not because they love America, but it would be in the worlds best interest for us not to blow up Palastine and Iraq at the same time.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 1, 2004 07:51 AMHey Rhinehold, maybe you don’t get the news where you are: There were no WMD in Iraq, no WMD programs, and no meaningful connections with terrorists.
In fact, Bush knew it wasn’t a “slam dunk” before going in. From page 249 of Woodward’s “Plan of Attack”:
When McLaughlin concluded [the WMD briefing], there was a look on the president’s face of, What’s this? And then a brief moment of silence.“Nice try,” Bush said. “I don’t think this is quite — it’s not something that Joe Public would understand or would gain a lot of confidence from.” … Bush turned to Tenet. “I’ve been told all this intelligence about having WMD and this is the best we’ve got?” From the end of one of the couches in the Oval Office, Tenet rose up, threw him arms in the air. “It’s a slam-dunk case!” the director of central intelligence said. Bush pressed. “George, how confident are you?” Tenet, a basketball fan who attended as many home games of his alma mater Georgetown University as possible, leaned forward and threw his arms up again. “Don’t worry, it’s a slam dunk!”
It was unusual for Tenet to be so certain. From McLaughlin’s presentation, Card was worried that there might be no “there there,” but Tenet’s double reassurance on the slam dunk was memorable and comforting. Cheney could think of no reason to question Tenet’s assertion. He was, after all, the head of the CIA and would know the most. The president later recalled that McLaughlin’s presentation “wouldn’t have stood the test of time.” But, said Bush, Tenet’s reassurance — “That was very important.”
“Needs a lot more work,” Bush told Card and Rice. “Let’s get some people who’ve actually put together a case for a jury.” He wanted some lawyers, prosecutors if need be. They were going to have to go public with something.
Isn’t it funny that the first thing President Bush wants to do is get the trial lawyers involved to make the WMD case more compelling for Joe Public? - And himself, too, it sounds like.
I don’t agree that your evidence supports the wisdom of invading Iraq, but I do agree that the President didn’t make a thorough, honest, and thoughtful case for it to the American people. That’s reason enough to relieve him of his job.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at November 1, 2004 08:28 AMGreat article by Rhine- I knew you were going to hear it from most everyone as soon as i saw the title :)! I do think that CF has a good point that Bush did not make an honest case of the real reason he wanted to go, which is very troubling.
I do want to take issue with what Aldous, because this is a common argument that I find very offensive. Why should the fact that people in the passed in this country made mistakes keep me from supporting a war I thought was justified NOW. That is, i thought Saddam needed to be removed both because (1) of human rights violations and (2) because i thought establishing a democracy in the middle east was the only possible way to begin winning the war on terror, and Iraq seemed like as good a target as any to make that happen (I have not heard even a mildly convicing proposal on how to start defeating terrorism on a large scale that is not based on this model). Both of those rationales are fully in tact still (I did think Saddam had WMDs, but I didnt think they were a threat to the u.s., so that is not why i supported the war).
Also, I was just a small child in the soviet union when the U.S. was supporting Iraq’s human rights abuses- so why in the world should that affect my decision in deciding what i want my government to do TODAY? Of course it should not- so your argument is misleading, at best.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at November 1, 2004 08:45 AMWhile I think it is arguable that it WAS valid for the US to invade, I do not believe it was in America’s interest or even smart.
We’ve expended large amounts of capital and lives for what end? A middle eastern country more unstable than before, a developing anti-American movement, and a loss of US Status in the world.
I do not think invading N. Korea would be smart either. I do not think invading China would be a great idea. They are evil regimes, too. Yes, Sadam was a horrific monster. Israel and Saudi Arabia certainly had reason to invade. It may have been annoying to simply drop occasional bombs on Sadam, but for the US purposes far cheaper and more effective.
This was a reckless gamble, and thus far, poorly executed. (The invansion was fine, but stabilization was apparently not a consideration, which was astoundingly stupid) Rumsfeld seems committed to proving his new doctrine, even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.
Several posters have said they do not believe that GW would start a war for “get even” reasons or political gain. They clearly have never read or heard of Machiavelli. Did he? I think that certainly was part of the strategy, was it the only reason? No. Was it the tipping factor? Only he and his God will ever know. GW’s history is fulll of “long shot gambles.” He lost this one, and people died.
Posted by: Greg at November 1, 2004 09:09 AMMisha
This is very good and comprehensive. You dealt with most of the objection, but let me weigh in on a couple.
Bush lied about WMD
Everybody thought Saddam had WMD. It is clear even today that he retained the capacity to create them and was only waiting for the end of sanctions to begin again. It is an embarrassing intelligence failure, but not a lie.
Why don’t we invade N. Korea or Iraq?
Just because you can’t do everything does not mean you should do nothing. Iraq seemed like the most immediately destabilizing and dangerous of the three and it was the only one we could take out without extreme consequences.
Past U.S. support for Saddam
Not very much. Read about it please in articles written during the 1980, when it was supposedly happening. Old issues of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy can help. Most of Saddam’s weapons were Soviet and French. During the Iraq-Iran War, the U.S. tilted toward Iraq because a decisive victory by either would have been very bad. That is not the same as support. Please get that right or at least put that in perspective.
Rhinehold,
You forgot to mention that the Iraqi’s could tried regime change through revolution.
I seem to remember the U.S. leaving them twisting in the wind after the Gulf war.
BTW, where were the patriot Iraqi’s that should have fighting beside us when we were trying to free their country?
As for Iran, and North Korea. I don’t think even Bush is that stupid. We don’t have enough troops in the area to subdue Iraq, how could we possibly dream of taking on anything else right now.
Rocky,
I did mention revolution, a course we tried supporting openly since 1998. As for ‘leaving them twisting in the wind’, that is one of the angriest moments I can remember with my country. It’s one thing to ignore the pleas of thousands/millions of people, but to say you will help if they revolt and when they do you turn your backs… We’ve done that too many times in this country, we forget our own history.
However, we know that Saddam’s grip on the country was so great that it never had a chance to succeed. Even our own revolution from Britan required help, financially and militarily, from other countries. And we were no where near as suppressed as the people in Iraq were. I don’t remember hearing of British soldiers beheading and amputing limbs from dissidents, raping their wives in front of them and their children, opening fire with automatic weapons into a crowd of demostrators, gassing of thousands from helicopters as they tried to rise up. The Iraqi’s spirits were broken and for the most part still are I imagine, they don’t really believe that the US will continue to support them while letting them choose their own leaders. And who can blame them, they watch the US news too. The success in Afghanistan should be an example to them, but do you hear about successes? No, they aren’t nearly as juicy as failures.
As for the Iraqis fighting with us, there are very large number of Iraqi National Guard members training to take over the security of their county so that soon after the election in Iraq and the dealing with Fallujah, the US will be able to pull more troops out of Iraq and let the security be maintained by them. Some remaining forces will need to remain, a base there much like we have in Germany, Kosovo, North Korea, etc. Someday it would be nice to be able to leave completely but history shows that complete pull-outs almost never happen.
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 1, 2004 11:22 AMRhinehold,
By Iraqi patriots fighting with us, I was speaking of when the invasion was starting.
Rhinehold,
Amen.
For your further reference of Sadams atrocities please see the document at the link below from the US Agency for International Development.
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html
You did not use this a reference in you original essay so I thought you may not be aware.
As for those attacking your post and President Bush for finally standing us to the murderous Terrorists, these are the same people who would likely not call police when the see a violent crime because they do not want to get involved. Hey if it doesn’t directly affect me I should keep my nose out of it.
Their hatred for the Bush Administration clouds their judgement. God himself could have written your post and they would still disagree with it.
Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Kirk at November 1, 2004 12:46 PMOkay —
So the first reason, that Iraq had WMD’s, is bunk but that’s okay because it was an honest mistake. Sorry, that doesn’t wash. I can make an honest mistake in addition or subtraction on my tax return but that won’t get anyone killed.
Even the diehard Bush supporters seem a little uneasy with that answer so we’re told that it’s a humanitarian effort. “Won’t someone think of the children?” they wail. “How can you lefties be so callous?”
Right. There’s nothing at all disingenuous about our government supporting a ruthless dictator when it serves the administration’s purpose and then decrying the horror, the horror when it’s convenient to start a war.
I’m not addressing this to Rhinehold because I think I know where he’s coming from, but I’m beginning to think that some of the Reds have an unstated agenda with this war just like Bush seems to. Anybody care to clue me in on what it really is? Religion? Oil? Or just plain money? What is it?
Sound paranoid? Pardon me, but I think I have reason to be. When the leaders of this country swear up and down that there is PROOF of WMD’s in Iraq — not suspicions, not some evidence, not a hunch, but PROOF — and then it turns out there is nothing at all, I must conclude that the administration is either completely inept or hiding something from us. Don’t tell me about humanitarian efforts, because it was a side effect at best.
Posted by: Alejo at November 1, 2004 01:10 PMAlejo,
I guess that based on the statements below, these Democrats are not fit to be president either.
Democrats and statements about WMD:
William J. Clinton :
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” February 4, 1998
William J. Clinton :
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” February 17, 1998
John Kerry:
“We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” Letter, October 9, 1998
Al Gore:
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” September 23, 2002
Al Gore:
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” September 23, 2002
Ted Kennedy:
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” September 27, 2002
John Kerry:
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force—-if necessary—-to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” October 9, 2002
Hillary Clinton:
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” October 10, 2002
John Kerry:
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime…He presents grievaous threat because e is so consistently prone miscalculation…And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons for weapons for massive district…So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real,” January 23, 2003
Was it this administation that supported “a ruthless dictator when it serves the administration’s purpose”?
No, I didn’t think so!
The agenda has been very clearly laid out for anyone who is not so jaded as to hear only what they choose to hear. The agenda is to eliminate terrorists wherever they choose to hide and to punish those states that support those terrorists.
Rhinehold has laid out a very compelling case supported by numerous verifiable citations. None of the shots from the left at Rhinehold’s post cite any back-up for their assertions. Arguments without support are just that arguments. They are hollow and based on feelings not reality.
Read the original post again and then check out the cited supporting documents. Then if you want to make a reasoned supportable argument do so with the supporting documents cited.
Posted by: Kirk at November 1, 2004 01:51 PMKirk —
None of those Democrats started the war we’re now involved in.
Your condescension is not at all appreciated. I don’t link to anything because I take the information given me by the person I’m debating and use logic to point out where I think his argument is incorrect.
You are correct that this administration did not support Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship. I never said it did, if you read my post. Donald Rumsfeld, however, met with Saddam Hussein in the 90’s after it was known that Hussein had gassed the Kurds, yet somehow this administration was not calling for him to removed until AFTER 9/11. I stand by my assertion that the humanitarian effort is marginal.
> While I think it is arguable that it WAS
> valid for the US to invade, I do not
> believe it was in America’s interest or
> even smart.
That’s exactly what I think. Supporters of the invasion think that those of us who opposed it did so because we think the very concept of invading Iraq is unjustified, illegal, immoral, or otherwise in violation of some basic principle that is more sacred than Saddam’s crimes would justify.
That’s not how we think, at least not most of us. As much as we think Saddam and his regime deserve what they got, and worse, we just don’t think that in the big picture the invasion is likely to actually advance America’s objectives (in particular the way politics played such a big part in shaping the military strategy to the invasion). Saddam was a mass murderer, but he wasn’t mass murdering when we invaded. He was a WMD menace, but he didn’t have any WMDs that were any danger to anyone when we invaded. He was hostile to his neighbors, but was no longer capable of such ambitions. In short, he deserved punishment but inflicting that punishment wasn’t worth the cost we are paying today.
This is not cops and robbers or “Law & Order”, and the USA isn’t “Team America: World Police”. There is no obligation, moral or otherwise, that requires us to seek at all costs to punish bad regimes around the world, especially not when the collateral and tangential harm that is caused in the nearly-unilateral pursuit of that justice is so massive.
I truly beleive that the world and America would be in better shape today if, for example, we bombed the shit out of all of Saddam’s suspect facilities but left him, his heirs, or his party in power. And/or if we kept the inspectors going, waited for Saddam to snap under the pressure of the tight inspections (or if we waited for the inspectors to actually find something incriminating), maybe then we could have built a more convincing coalition based on convincing evidence that Saddam was not cooperating. Even if you accept the invasion as a mission to implant democracy, wouldn’t it have been better if we sent three times as many troops so we could have secured the country much more thoroughly? Instead, errors were made at every opportunity.
I think that a slower, more careful, and smarter approach could have been made to successfully topple Saddam without recklessly invading, killing tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, stretching our military thin, dividing our own people through goverment deception, utterly undermining the world’s trust in America’s intelligence and diplomatic capabilities, and alienating America from our friends and allies around the world. There are so many ways this could have been done better.
I really don’t think that Iraq’s dangerousness came down to just that one man, or even just his circle of accomplices. A warlord’s rivals are generally also warlords. A thug’s rivals are usually other thugs. Our focus on decapitation made us think that the body would not keep fighting, which was an error.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at November 1, 2004 02:16 PMSorry, Alejo, that’s just not correct.
Bush ran on the platform of furthering what Clinton had done in getting Saddam removed from power, almost immediately after his inauguration he authorized the use of US aid to the Iraqis who were fighting against Saddam. He also investigated plans that involved forcibly removing Saddam from power if that need arose.
This was listed in the article I wrote. It was after 9/11 that Bush, and many others, felt that allowing this type of behavior against the international community and state sponsored terror to continue, so the natural progression was to take the action that most felt was eventually needed.
There is no evidence anywhere suggesting that the Bush administration didn’t want anything to do with Iraq until after 9/11.
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 1, 2004 02:19 PMAlejo,
My point was that numerous leaders in the Democratic party made public statements that Iraq did indeed have WMD’s. If Bush had been the only one claiming that Sadam had WMD’s I would be much more inclined to move your direction. However, with all the support from the left we can not claim that Bush lied without claiming the Dems lied.
When there is multiple sources to support the points given by the one you are debating how can you use logic to dispute those points without providing sources for your stance?
You are correct that you did not specifically say that the Bush Administration had supported the ruthless dictator but, the inference was surely there. If no one challenges it you get to let the inference ride. When the statement is challenged you can back away with “I didn’t say that”.
Posted by: Kirk at November 1, 2004 02:31 PMSorry Christopher, but you got a few things wrong I need to point out.
1) Saddam was killing and committing Human Rights atrocities right up until the time we invaded. Seek out Amnesty International’s evidence of the matter, along with others that I listed. Decapitations, mutilations, rape and murder were still going strong.
2) Vladimir Putin warned the US that Iraq was planning on attacking US targets after 9/11 and before we invaded. How capable he was of doing it, we don’t know, but you apparently think that is a good chance to take?
3) You support the sanctions, but the only people who suffered under the sanctions were the poor and innocent. Our invasion took out the people responsible for this. I dare say that fewer than 500,000 children under the age of 6 were killed by the invasion but they were killed by the years of sanctions. I personally think it is better to put an end to the situation and allow healing and growth to begin rather than continue keeping an entire country down and suffering in order to allow Saddam to remain in power. Not only do the sanctions generate ill will against the world community that is imposing them, the longer they go on the longer it will take for the citizens to grow beyond it. The damage done by 12 years of oppressive sanctions will not be fixed overnight, something that the Left, and to some extent, the Right thinks is possible. However, the mood in the country is growing positive towards the US, that can be seen (in other places than the US media machines) and citizens are signing up to protect the country themselves as National Police. And the insurgents are even getting upset with the terrorists who are bombing and decapitating hostages, they are upset that it gives them a bad name. Personally, I am positive about the progress, I wasn’t idealic on what kind of hurdles we were going to face, apparently many either did expect or are holding us to an unrealistic standard of providing that quick turnaround.
4) The US intelligence was bad, it needs fixed. Hopefully that is being done, but to not act on what we thought was good intelligence at the time would have been mind-numbingly stupid. Wasn’t it the Left that was calling for Bush to be impeached because he didn’t act upon ‘intelligence’ that suggested that al Qaeda might have possibly been planning something? We are suppose to act on intelligence that flimsy but not act on what we beleived was solid evidence that was backed up by our English, Chech and Russian counterparts?
5) You say it could have been done better, and I agree that there are way that it could have been, but how? Has Kerry provided anything other than going back to the UN, who has failed miserably in this case for reasons we now see are corrupt, and continuing the support for the death and oppression of an entire citizenry because we didn’t want to deal with the root cause, Saddam Hussein, his sons and the Ba’athist leadership that was perpetrating these cowardly acts?
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 1, 2004 02:38 PMKirk —
I did give an alternative to deception, which is ineptitude. There is a difference, whether you acknowledge it or not, between saying you believe Iraq has WMD’s and saying you believe Iraq has WMD’s and then declaring war. It’s okay to be wrong when no one dies, is my point. And if Democrats were caught in the post-9/11 fervor and spoke out in favor of using force, well, they must shoulder some of the burden of pursuing an unjustified war. In the end, though, Bush made the final decision.
You don’t see how I can use the information provided by my opponent to argue against his own logic? Well, I can’t really help you with that if you don’t see my point, but because links seem to be more convincing, explain this one to me. How many different ways can they have it?
That’s nice, how you imply that I’m obfuscating. Thanks. I say what I mean. Welcome to Watchblog.
1) The beheadings and such that you mention are par for the course for many nations in that region, and don’t in themselves elevate Iraq above its neighbors as a horrifically brutal regime. Human Rights Watch, which condemned Saddam’s Iraq consistently, made a point of saying that there was no human rights ‘crisis’ in Iraq in the years leading up to the invasion. The mass graves usually cited as evidence for Saddam’s brutality are all over a decade old. Saddam was a brutal man who deserves the worst fate imaginable, but it’s just not true to say that invading Iraq saved more lives in Iraq than containing Saddam would have.
2) Yes, I thought it was an acceptable chance to take. It’s certainly better than the situation today, when tens of thousands of renegades, terrorists, and insurgents are now in the posession of trainloads of military materials, including the most powerful non-nuclear explosives.
And if I were you I wouldn’t trust Vladimir Putin. I predict that the Republican Party will come to regret President Bush being so buddy-buddy with “Pootie-Poot”.
3) I never said I supported the sanctions.
4) The intelligence indeed suggested that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But it was by all accounts not conclusive. We needed to find out for sure. I agree with that. I’ve always thought that the late 2002 buildup of force, the joint Congressional resolution, and the resulting renewed UN weapons inspections, were the beginnings of a legendary American foreign policy triumph along the lines of the Cuban Missle Crisis. The inspections which began in late 2002 were beginning to rapidly find out the truth, and Saddam was suprisingly largely cooperating. We found out more in those three months of renewed inspections than our intelligence agencies were able to uncover in four years.
This cooperation was inconvenient for Bush, who ultimately simply wanted to overthrow Saddam and was wrongly assuming that Saddam would resist the inspections to the bitter end. With the evidence of WMDs being eroded beneath his feet, he quickly invaded and took an enormous long-shot gamble that we’d find the WMDs ourselves. He took the gamble not only based on ambiguous past intelligence about Iraq, but even in the face of the NEW evidence that was pouring out of Iraq. Insofar as our reputation as an honest and well-informed superpower was on the line, his gamble failed.
Also, contrary to your stereotype, I don’t think Bush particularly missed the boat on the pre-9/11 intelligence. I do think that before 9/11 he missed the boat on the whole concept of terrorism in general, a topic which he and his team essentially ignored in toto until that tragic September morning. But I don’t think 9/11 could have been prevented even if Bush had been paying much more attention.
(In fact, I’m not even too confident that 9/11 part II couldn’t happen today, given how little attention we’ve paid to terrorists outside of Afghanistan or Iraq and how little attention that has been paid to our own airport security.)
5) I already said how it could have been done better. But first, I want to reiterate that I generally agreed with Bush’s aggressive approach right up to February 2003, when the march to war began to appear inevitable even though the WMD evidence was evaporating. He went wrong in so many ways. First, he continually pushed potential allies away instead of compromising with them, a pattern of behavior that culminated in the eventual formation of a coalition that apparently didn’t care either about whether or not WMDs were there. Kerry would have played that game differently, because Kerry would not have already decided the next step in advance of the actual events that occurred: the substantial cooperation of the Iraqi regime to the renewed inspections. Bush had no plan for such an eventuality. What a wise President like Kerry would have done in Feb 2002 is keep the pressure on as the inspections continued. IF at that point Saddam began to revert to hostile behavior, or if WMDs were actually found, forming an invasion coalition with far more allies would have been far easier. On the other hand, if the inspections went on and on and found nothing at all, then no invasion would be necessary, and we could be living in a world today with an Iraq crawling with UN inspectors, US airplanes monitoring facilities and borders, and a country with little to no ability to pose a threat to itself or others.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at November 1, 2004 03:33 PMOn the other hand, if the inspections went on and on and found nothing at all, then no invasion would be necessary, and we could be living in a world today with an Iraq crawling with UN inspectors, US airplanes monitoring facilities and borders, and a country with little to no ability to pose a threat to itself or others.
Which was my point, by doing this we would have been approving a policy of killing Iraqis through sanctions simply for the fact that we don’t trust Saddam.
Either he had the weapons and the sanctions needed to be backed up with force since they were not getting the job done
Or the sanctions worked and he had no weapons and was no longer a danger so the sanctions needed to be removed. Keeping the sanctions in place simply because you don’t like the leader of a country, killing and opressing the entire country’s citizenry is more disturbing than what Saddam was doing, IMO.
There is simply no alternative action that makes any sense here except a continued destruction of the Iraqi society that would possibly have taken decades to resolve. It’s going to be hard enough now, the sanctions should never NEVER had been allowed to go on as long as they have, something should have been done, one way or the other, years before.
This is my biggest argument with Clinton, on this issue specifically, he was unwilling to take this step. Bush did. That it may cost him the election I feel is irrelevant in his mind, he did what he thought was right.
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 1, 2004 03:47 PMChris:
3) I never said I supported the sanctions.
Okay, so how about telling us what you would have done regarding the sanctions. I see only a couple options:
A) Leave them in place, which was causing deaths by the score, according to many people
B) Remove them, which would have allowed Saddam the freedom to do as he chose
C) Modify them in some manner, based on Saddam’s cooperation with the UN inspectors, something he never fully provided.
Its really easy to say you didnt support them, and much more difficult to say what you’d have done about them. Finding answers is always tougher than simply complaining about what you don’t like in a policy.
Chris, I have faith that you’ve thought this issue through, as you have many others. I’ll await your reply.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 1, 2004 04:06 PMKirk said: “Arguments without support are just that arguments. They are hollow and based on feelings not reality.”
That is an absurd statement. One can bring all kinds of evidence to include brainwashing and torture to a logical mind and convince it that 2+2=5. However, 2+2 will still remain 4, regardless. Both sides try to redefine 4, but in the end, 4 will remain 4 because the logic and truth of it by concensus and historical precedent for defining it will continue to make 2+2 equal 4 by definition.
The Swiftboat argument about Kerry’s actions decades ago regardless of their validity or not, do not make Kerry unfit for command today by the same truth that prevents Bush from being unfit by virtue of his DUI, drug use etc decades ago. The truth is still true, what a person did 30 years ago, usually does not define who they are today. Hopefully Americans will know the truth and the lies, but perhaps not, in which case we may get the lesser instead of the better.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 1, 2004 05:41 PMDavid,
Thank you. You have made my point exactly.
A mind can be convinced of something that is not true if it is told enough times. And yes, even though that mind may believe what it has been told the supportable evidence says otherwise.
Posted by: Kirk at November 1, 2004 07:10 PMJoe, I am flattered by your faith! :)
But I’ll confess that I really don’t know what I would have done about the sanctions. I have no idea, for example, whether or not Saddam would have been far more powerful without the sanctions. Clearly there were enormous problems with them, but maybe the alternative was worse. I really don’t know enough about it. I wasn’t even all that carzy about the 1980’s sanctions against South Africa that liberals loved so much. I guess I am a sanction swing voter!
I freely admit it when a policy is too complicated for me to understand. Foreign policy is enormously complex, and it’s totally normal for a layman like myself to be utterly unqualified to make any decision whatsoever on the issue. I really cannot take a position on something when I don’t know much about it.
[This is, by the way, a perfect example of one of the core reasons why I think the current President is unqualified for his office: his gut instincts and his basic moral compass can only help him so much - at some point, deep knowledge and a nimble mind become key. He is not strong in either faculty, and as such his ability to make wise decisions about complex issues like sanctions is severely handicapped.]
On a very general level, however, I am fairly sure that there are plenty of options between the sanctions and the invasion. It’s not an either/or model.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at November 1, 2004 07:38 PM> Which was my point, by doing this we would
> have been approving a policy of killing
> Iraqis through sanctions simply for the
> fact that we don’t trust Saddam.
Rhinehold, you are again weirdly equating inspections with sanctions. They were each parts of the same total strategy, but they are still two different things. There is no reason why inspections couldn’t occur even while the economic sanctions were removed. In fact, perhaps more rigorous inspections, backed by American military force, would make the economic sanctions less necessary.
Many aspects of the sanctions system were also military in nature, not economic. The no-fly zone policy was without a doubt an effective tool in crippling Saddam’s ability to wage war internally or externally.
You condemn sanctions while advocating invasion and all-out war. I take a middle ground, where the smallest number of people die, America emerges with the greatest strength and security, and Saddam is kept from doing any more harm than any other two bit dictator. I am talking about a rigorous system of inspectors, soldiers, and yes, even actual deadly violent military actions for violations of that inspection system. I am talking about Clinton’s policy, only magnified tenfold in the military department and possibly reduced in the sanctions department.
I repeat: Nothing I or John Kerry have advocated precludes military action. It’s the invasion in the face of no pressing attack or immediate danger that I object to.
In fact, the policy I am describing could very well have led to war anyway, for example if Saddam attacked the inspectors or if a powerful and viable anti-Saddam insurgent group emerged in a region of the country and needed our support. I have no problem with that outcome. But at least under my model the war would have occurred without any doubt that Saddam was the aggressor, and we’d have a much easier time securing international help. In this war, America was the aggressor. That’s Bush’s legacy.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at November 1, 2004 08:01 PMChris,
[This is, by the way, a perfect example of one of the core reasons why I think the current President is unqualified for his office: his gut instincts and his basic moral compass can only help him so much - at some point, deep knowledge and a nimble mind become key. He is not strong in either faculty, and as such his ability to make wise decisions about complex issues like sanctions is severely handicapped.]
You will be pleased to know that the one everyone so affectionately calls a moron on this blog has a higher IQ than Kerry. For some of us that is not so difficult to believe.
What is so telling here is that John Kerry readily admits he has not released his records. Just a bit of side information. In spite of the fact that he stated it I am sure you will disagree with it. Maybe we will get to see them if he gets elected. That would be special.
Of course with that much power, he may even be able to have them changed. And the conspiracy theories abound. Almost worth watching. Don’t you agree?
Sen. Kerry: Nation ‘is polarized’
Brokaw: Someone has analyzed the President’s military aptitude tests and yours, and concluded that he has a higher IQ than you do.
Kerry: That’s great. More power. I don’t know how they’ve done it, because my record is not public. So I don’t know where you’re getting that from.
MAW, how on earth do you profess to know Kerry or Bush’s IQ? You swallowed that Brokaw thing as gospel? Gimme a break.
Anyway, have fun voting!
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at November 1, 2004 10:55 PMThanks Chris but I live in a Blue State. But what the heck! It will be a lesson in futility.
I will check in tomorrow night.
Have a good one!
Posted by: MAW at November 1, 2004 11:48 PMChris,
John Kerry’s mind is so nimble it keeps coming up with new positions for every issue.
Maybe you Dems should use some of that $30 million dollars from George Soros to buy him a compass so that he could keep going in one direction once he has stated a position.
Posted by: Kirk at November 2, 2004 12:06 AMRheinhold, I agree completely. Especially in view of what has come out about france, germany, and other’s illegal dealings with iraq.
Bert, I guess we shouldn’t have gotten involved in germany in WWII. I mean they weren’t rapeing, torturing, or murdering americans en masse.
I am extremly proud of my son for his service to his country. Yes, he did his tour in iraq. Guess what the first thing was he told me about being there. “We need to be there!” If he had not returned I would have been horrified, but I wouldn’t have blamed bush or the military. I would have blamed those truly resposible, the extremists that make our sacrifices necessary and the UN for not doing their job.
Rhinehold wrote:
Option 1 meant eventually leaving Iraq to Hussein with no sanctions, free to continue his Human Right violations and kill/rape/torture thousands and supporting his terrorists friends. Or wait, according to you he didn’t do those things, right?
This is what I never said, Rhinehold.
However, I will respectfully welcome you to the WB ranks. Yet, recalling the debates we’ve had previously, I was shocked…shocked!, to find you writing in the middle column.
I’ve never lied about anything you didn’t write, but I reserve the right to call your assertions as I see them. Yes, I did digest your entire post, but I was specific about addressing only two points. Points that you’ve again sidestepped in responding.
I never sited or questioned your comments about the Clinton era, and I never claimed you personally dissed Amnesty Intl.
Although you assert the fate of the Iraqi people was ‘listed’ as a reason for the Invasion, I’ve pointed out that it was not a main selling point used (as it is now), to make the administration’s case. And, if it was the only selling point (as it is now), Bush would not have gotten his authorization.
To answer your question, this is what I wished happened and how I would have acted. I would’ve given the inspectors 3 more months, whereby we would know what we know now - no WMDs’.
Only after the remaining stockpiles were removed or destroyed, and inspectors given unconditional and unfettered access to keep watch, I’d lift the sanctions, but maintain the no-fly zones.
But, again I will stress that your newfound act as a champion of human rights abuses in Iraq, is becoming increasingly annoying. It is the act of someone who will not admit error, and exploit the last desperate justification for an unnecessary war.
You can claim to be a Libertarian, but when it comes to Iraq, if it walks like a Bush apologists, if it talks like a Bush apologist…
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at November 2, 2004 03:46 AMAlthough you assert the fate of the Iraqi people was ‘listed’ as a reason for the Invasion, I’ve pointed out that it was not a main selling point used (as it is now), to make the administration’s case. And, if it was the only selling point (as it is now), Bush would not have gotten his authorization.
No, it isn’t the only reason. Being a state sponsor of terrorism is another reason that the administration gave, and is giving. There are even others that they gave.
Remember, the opening paragraph of my article I bemoan that the administration took the route of least resistance in getting the case made, and it may very well cost them the election.
I believe that if they had made the case that the country was stalling UN efforts, pointed out the terrorism links and human rights abuses as I did in my article that we would have gotten the authorization and the administration wouldn’t be in the political mess it is now.
But as for making the case that they had WMD, remember that most of the congress believed the exact same thing and had been saying so before Bush was even in office. It was not a ‘hard sell’ because the people he was trying to sell had bought before he had even tried to peddle.
As for you being ‘shocked’ that I am writing for the middle column, I think that goes more to saying something about your view of politics than mine. I didn’t vote for George Bush last election and was in the same situation I’m in now, trying to decide between two people I don’t think are fit for the job.
To answer your question, this is what I wished happened and how I would have acted. I would’ve given the inspectors 3 more months, whereby we would know what we know now - no WMDs’.Only after the remaining stockpiles were removed or destroyed, and inspectors given unconditional and unfettered access to keep watch, I’d lift the sanctions, but maintain the no-fly zones.
So, after 12 years and 4 years of no inspection team on the ground at all, you are confident that 3 months is all it would have taken to know, without a shadow of a doubt, that the inspectors weren’t being fooled or tricked and everything had been destroyed as it was required? Remember, even Hans Blix said that while they were getting improved cooperation, they were still not getting full and unfettered access as required by 1441 and that he didn’t think that the administration of Iraq ‘got it’.
So, at the end of 3 months, when there were still questions and they asked for another 3 months, would you have given it to them? Oh, and no one ever asked for ‘3 more months’ at the time, only that they needed more time. No one was willing to put a hard date on anything. The notion that they could have known for sure after 3 more months of investigation came out over a year later.
But, again I will stress that your newfound act as a champion of human rights abuses in Iraq, is becoming increasingly annoying. It is the act of someone who will not admit error, and exploit the last desperate justification for an unnecessary war.You can claim to be a Libertarian, but when it comes to Iraq, if it walks like a Bush apologists, if it talks like a Bush apologist…
Newfound? I was calling for and end to the situation in Iraq in the mid 90s when it was clear that the sanctions were killing thousands of people, Saddam was gassing revolters after we urged them to revolt and we stood by and did nothing and our enforcement of the No Fly zone ended up killing innocent people because the Iraqi administration was putting their defense systems in people’s farms, mosques, etc.
As for being a Bush apologist, I am really trying to figure out where that is coming from. Are you just projecting onto me the notion of someone disagrees with your view that they must be a Bush Apologist? I’ve written, on this blog and other places, that I disagree with this administration on several counts. I’ve also written that I think John Kerry is an opportunist panderer that is the least qualified to be president of the United states as we’ve ever seen.
I think that this election is a mind-numbling example of scraping the bottom of the political barrel, I’ve begged for years for SOMEONE on either side who has some capacity to be a qualified leader to step up and give us an option.
If that’s a ‘Bush Apologist’ than I have to say that I don’t think that phrase means what you think it means…
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 2, 2004 08:23 AM> I bemoan that the administration took the route
> of least resistance in getting the case made
That’s the best euphemism for “lied to Congress, the American people, and the world” I’ve ever heard!
> and it may very well cost them the election.
I wonder if you have forgiven them their dishonesty. Are you of the “Noble Lie” school of government, where if the government does what is certainly the right thing to do but has to lie to the citizens in order to get it done, then it’s all okay?
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at November 2, 2004 08:37 AMI wonder if you have forgiven them their dishonesty. Are you of the “Noble Lie” school of government, where if the government does what is certainly the right thing to do but has to lie to the citizens in order to get it done, then it’s all okay?
No, of course not. But I also am not trying to change the definition of the word ‘lie’ for political gain either.
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 2, 2004 08:42 AMIf this is the Wrong War, at the Wrong Place, at the Wrong Time, why are our Brave Patriots in harms way so overwhelmingly supporting George Bush? Because they being in the Military recognize a true leader.
Read the USA Today article below. I am sure that no one could claim that the USA Today is a Right Wing Rag so you should be able to accept their reporting.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-03-bush-troops_x.htm
Not only are the troops supporting Bush with their vote, they are doing it with their enlistment. The link below is to an article discussing enlistment / re-enlistment rates.
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_numbers_041404,00.html?ESRC=airforce-a.nl
These are the troops being shot at in harms way. If for no other reason than to support the troops you on the left should be deferring to their wishes to have George Bush as a Commander-in-Chief.
John Kerry for all practical purposes made himself impotent as a potential Commander-in-Chief as far as the military is concerned during his Senate testimony in ‘71. Even though Kerry was no longer on active duty when he testified he was still obligated to the Navy as part of the Ready Reserve. Therefore, if the things Kerry said during that testimony are true, he violated the Military Code of Justice by not naming the soldiers who committed these these war crimes. If the charges were not true Kerry lied under oath to the Senate.
Kerry was also part of the militant Viet Nam Veterans Against War. According to the FBI and later confirmed by Kerry spokespeople, Kerry was present at a meeting of these militants in Kansas City where plans for the assasination of three sitting US Senators was discussed. Kerry broke both criminal and moral law by not reporting these plans to law enforcement.
Swallow your anti-Bush bias and support your Patriotic men / women in uniform by giving them their choice of a true Commander-in-Chief.
Kirk:
These are the troops being shot at in harms way. If for no other reason than to support the troops you on the left should be deferring to their wishes to have George Bush as a Commander-in-Chief.
No. I’m voting my conscience. Please don’t play the military card. Every vote has the same weight and every person gets ONE to use as he or she feels is best.
Posted by: Alejo at November 2, 2004 02:28 PMAlejo,
The left “plays the military card” on a regular basis. Dems continually bring up the number of US Service People killed in Iraq as one of the reasons that Bush is such a failure.
I am not playing any card, the lives of our Service Men and Women are too precious. Therefore, I give greater credence to their wishes and judgement as to who would be the best Commander-in-Chief.
Posted by: Kirk at November 2, 2004 03:42 PMThe problem is that many of the things quoted here could be applied to the US by people from Iraq and other countries.
Let he who HAS NOT SINNED ……………..
To everybody who tries to beef with Kerry about his war record:
at least he went.
Enough said.
Posted by: Brandon at November 2, 2004 07:40 PM
