Seven Simple Questions For Those Who Supported The War.

[MacBeth]

There are some pretty basic questions I have never seen answered from those who favored the war, and rather than make another post pointing out the flaws in the argument for war, I thought it might be constructive to simply ask for answers from those who, it is assumed, have them as a means of continuing to defend the administration's arguments for this war.


I am hoping that these questions, which have often been ducked in individual posts about them, might be addressed when asked point blank.

The closest thing I have ever seen to responses to these fundamental questions has been a series of claims that top White House officials, including the President, made continual errors of speech while outlining the argument for war to the American public and the world, and somehow never got around to correcting those errors at the time, or the even better response that admits they manipulated us, but that that's ok. If people want to repeat those, that's your prerogative, but a series of them might begin to look a trifle convenient even to other war supporters. I am hoping that there might be some responses with some sort of substance.



Question One: If the reason for the war, as advocated to the world at large and the American people wasn't WMD alone, why did Bush repeatedly state that Iraq could avoid war by disarming?


Question Two: If the liberation of the Iraqi people was in itself sufficient justification for the war, why were the American people and the world at large not told this before the war? In fact, why were we told the reverse, as Wolfowitz stated in his interview with Vanity Fair "... there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two...The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. ?

Question Three: If the administration is claiming that their belief that war was necessary based on the intel about Al Queda links with Iraq and the danger Iraq's WMD/nukes posed to America and Iraq's neighbours, why does the recently released NIE report reveal that the intel community repeatedly told the White House the exact opposite, that there was no link between Iraq and Al Queda, and that there was nothing to suggest that Iraq was any kind of threat to any other nation including the U.S?

Question Four: If our intel was saying no WMD, 9-11 connections, and we stated that freedom of the people was not sufficient ( as we are now saying about Liberia) cause to send in a major military force...what, then, made war with Iraq so necessary? What is it about Iraq that seperated it from, say, Liberia?


Question Five: If before the war there were numerous resignations and public statements from top intel and diplomatic officials vehemently criticizing the administration for seeking intel that supported it's argument rather than objective intelligence, and the released reports confirm that the intel which undermied the war position was made available to the administration, how can we buy the present argument that the White House was merely victims of being given incorrect intel?

Question Six: If, as stated, the war was about the imminent threat of Iraqi WMD, including 'reconstituted nukes', and/or 'nuclear weapons programs weeks away from yielding active weapons', and 'hundreds of thousands of gallons of chemical gas'...at what point in the process of non-discovery will war supporters admit that the war was not justified as advertised?

Question Seven: If the declared war on terrorism was the priority it was said to be after 9-11, when and why did the focus shift to war with Iraq to the point where we diverted funding, intelligence resources, and personel away from pursuing Al Queada and into Iraq, especially given that our own intel said that Iraq was largely irrelevent to the war on terror?

[giddyup]

Oh, Viceroy of Verbosity, you ask for substance and look who shows up! LOL...


Question One: If the reason for the war, as advocated to the world at large and the American people wasn't WMD alone, why did Bush repeatedly state that Iraq could avoid war by disarming?

That was the primary thing that threatened externally.


Question Two: If the liberation of the Iraqi people was in itself sufficient justification for the war, why were the American people and the world at large not told this before the war? In fact, why were we told the reverse, as Wolfowitz stated in his interview with Vanity Fair "... there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two...The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. ?

Wasn't that interview with Wolfowitz conducted after the war? If you look at the SOTU2003, you will actually see how little the WMD issue prevailed over other aspects.

Question Three: If the administration is claiming that their belief that war was necessary based on the intel about Al Queda links with Iraq and the danger Iraq's WMD/nukes posed to America and Iraq's neighbours, why does the recently released NIE report reveal that the intel community repeatedly told the White House the exact opposite, that there was no link between Iraq and Al Queda, and that there was nothing to suggest that Iraq was any kind of threat to any other nation including the U.S?

This is a good question-- must be conflicting reports. When that happens you choose your side.

Question Four: If our intel was saying no WMD, 9-11 connections, and we stated that freedom of the people was not sufficient ( as we are now saying about Liberia) cause to send in a major military force...what, then, made war with Iraq so necessary? What is it about Iraq that seperated it from, say, Liberia?

Middle East geography.


Question Five: If before the war there were numerous resignations and public statements from top intel and diplomatic officials vehemently criticizing the administration for seeking intel that supported it's argument rather than objective intelligence, and the released reports confirm that the intel which undermied the war position was made available to the administration, how can we buy the present argument that the White House was merely victims of being given incorrect intel?

Numerous? Vehement? A few out of hundreds. No intel is objective.

Question Six: If, as stated, the war was about the imminent threat of Iraqi WMD, including 'reconstituted nukes', and/or 'nuclear weapons programs weeks away from yielding active weapons', and 'hundreds of thousands of gallons of chemical gas'...at what point in the process of non-discovery will war supporters admit that the war was not justified as advertised?

Did you see the photo going around about the Russian MIG found buried in a sand dune. Pretty incredible. How many dunes in Iraq?

Question Seven: If the declared war on terrorism was the priority it was said to be after 9-11, when and why did the focus shift to war with Iraq to the point where we diverted funding, intelligence resources, and personel away from pursuing Al Queada and into Iraq, especially given that our own intel said that Iraq was largely irrelevent to the war on terror?

Base of operations, methinks. Big picture.

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by giddyup
Oh, Viceroy of Verbosity, you ask for substance and look who shows up! LOL...


Question One: If the reason for the war, as advocated to the world at large and the American people wasn't WMD alone, why did Bush repeatedly state that Iraq could avoid war by disarming?

That was the primary thing that threatened externally.


Question Two: If the liberation of the Iraqi people was in itself sufficient justification for the war, why were the American people and the world at large not told this before the war? In fact, why were we told the reverse, as Wolfowitz stated in his interview with Vanity Fair "... there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two...The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. ?

Wasn't that interview with Wolfowitz conducted after the war? If you look at the SOTU2003, you will actually see how little the WMD issue prevailed over other aspects.

Question Three: If the administration is claiming that their belief that war was necessary based on the intel about Al Queda links with Iraq and the danger Iraq's WMD/nukes posed to America and Iraq's neighbours, why does the recently released NIE report reveal that the intel community repeatedly told the White House the exact opposite, that there was no link between Iraq and Al Queda, and that there was nothing to suggest that Iraq was any kind of threat to any other nation including the U.S?

This is a good question-- must be conflicting reports. When that happens you choose your side.

Question Four: If our intel was saying no WMD, 9-11 connections, and we stated that freedom of the people was not sufficient ( as we are now saying about Liberia) cause to send in a major military force...what, then, made war with Iraq so necessary? What is it about Iraq that seperated it from, say, Liberia?

Middle East geography.


Question Five: If before the war there were numerous resignations and public statements from top intel and diplomatic officials vehemently criticizing the administration for seeking intel that supported it's argument rather than objective intelligence, and the released reports confirm that the intel which undermied the war position was made available to the administration, how can we buy the present argument that the White House was merely victims of being given incorrect intel?

Numerous? Vehement? A few out of hundreds. No intel is objective.

Question Six: If, as stated, the war was about the imminent threat of Iraqi WMD, including 'reconstituted nukes', and/or 'nuclear weapons programs weeks away from yielding active weapons', and 'hundreds of thousands of gallons of chemical gas'...at what point in the process of non-discovery will war supporters admit that the war was not justified as advertised?

Did you see the photo going around about the Russian MIG found buried in a sand dune. Pretty incredible. How many dunes in Iraq?

Question Seven: If the declared war on terrorism was the priority it was said to be after 9-11, when and why did the focus shift to war with Iraq to the point where we diverted funding, intelligence resources, and personel away from pursuing Al Queada and into Iraq, especially given that our own intel said that Iraq was largely irrelevent to the war on terror?

Base of operations, methinks. Big picture.

1) Doesn't answer the question. If action X will prevent war, then X must be, logically, the reason for war. Not the primary external reason, the only reason.

2) The interview was conducted very shortly after the war...what is your point? He was stating the White House's own position at the time...remeber, in the same interivew he was also reflecting the WH position at the time that WMD finds were pending, vans, etc., so they hadn't backed off onto the present attempt to repaint the picture as being about humanitarian causes yet. Wolfowitz himself stated that those reasons were not seen by the administration as enough to go to war...how can we later say that they are and were all along? And the SOTUA includes the statement that disarmament= no war, so I don't see how it supports your claim that it wasn't the prevailing issue. Yes, other benefits for the war were given...but not reasons for the war. There is a difference. You can have benefits from an action which don't justify said action in and of themselves.

3) The NIE represents the comprehensive intelligence community's assessment. If you chose another side from your primary organ of intelligence gathering/assessment, what does that say about what your motivation is, especially now that it has been shown to be incorrect? It's not simply a matter that there were tow equal sides presented and the WH chose to go with B over A, that's a complete cop-out. It was presented to them very clearly and comprehensively: No link to 9-11, no threat.

4) Elaborate please.

5) A few? Try dozens, all told. And this was unprecedented...even VietNam didn't generate this kind of outcry from senior people inside the comminities in question. And, again, it seems more and more clear that they were right. And yes, vehement, these were people who were so dismayed by what they saw happening that threw away their careers...careers that had been under both parties, that had been to war before..and from the kinds of people, espeically in intel, who usually stay well back from the spotlight. I would say that that's pretty vehement.

6) So your answer is?

7) Base of operations for the war on terrorism? You are suggesting that we pulled of resources trying to find AL Queda for real estate? First of all the war on terrorism doesn't rely on geographic bases of operations. Secondly if it did we already have some in Soudi, Israel, Afghanistan, etc. Third, if our intel said Iraq wasn't involved, why would we choose that as a base? Fourth, there is more evidence to suggest that liberia is connected to Al Queada than Iraq was, so why isn't that a base of operations considerartion? This is, sorry, pretty weak.

[trugoy]

The scary thing is you can hammer this over people's heads until it's bleeding, but you will not change people's minds about this. That's why Bush still enjoys tremendous success, because he has found the elixir of political success.

Create fear.
Blame others.
Wrap self in flag and constitution.
Rinse and repeat.

[giddyup]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MacBeth
[B]1) Doesn't answer the question. If action X will prevent war, then X must be, logically, the reason for war. Not the primary external reason, the only reason.

I don't think that follows. It was an offer from Bush not a de facto formula extracted from nature.


2) The interview was conducted very shortly after the war...what is your point? He was stating the White House's own position at the time...remeber, in the same interivew he was also reflecting the WH position at the time that WMD finds were pending, vans, etc., so they hadn't backed off onto the present attempt to repaint the picture as being about humanitarian causes yet. Wolfowitz himself stated that those reasons were not seen by the administration as enough to go to war...how can we later say that they are and were all along? And the SOTUA includes the statement that disarmament= no war, so I don't see how it supports your claim that it wasn't the prevailing issue. Yes, other benefits for the war were given...but not reasons for the war. There is a difference. You can have benefits from an action which don't justify said action in and of themselves.

I don't think they were repainting anything. The SOTU2003 primarily expressed humanitarian concerns.

I think that the Dems jockeyed the Admin into the WMD defense by persisting with that line of questioning. I think that all along they were hoping (knowing) they could paint the Admin into a corner with that issue.

3) The NIE represents the comprehensive intelligence community's assessment. If you chose another side from your primary organ of intelligence gathering/assessment, what does that say about what your motivation is, especially now that it has been shown to be incorrect? It's not simply a matter that there were tow equal sides presented and the WH chose to go with B over A, that's a complete cop-out. It was presented to them very clearly and comprehensively: No link to 9-11, no threat.

What has been shown to be incorrect? No WMDs? Too early to pass judgement.

4) Elaborate please.

Having a democratically stable Iraq will facilitate our idea of stabilizing the middle east.

5) A few? Try dozens, all told. And this was unprecedented...even VietNam didn't generate this kind of outcry from senior people inside the comminities in question. And, again, it seems more and more clear that they were right. And yes, vehement, these were people who were so dismayed by what they saw happening that threw away their careers...careers that had been under both parties, that had been to war before..and from the kinds of people, espeically in intel, who usually stay well back from the spotlight. I would say that that's pretty vehement.

I can only think of four or so. Is there a list available somewhere. Wasn't the most "vehement" proven to be a Democrat anyway?

6) So your answer is?

You haven't found your missing keys until you find your missing keys. It's not over yet.

7) Base of operations for the war on terrorism? You are suggesting that we pulled of resources trying to find AL Queda for real estate? First of all the war on terrorism doesn't rely on geographic bases of operations. Secondly if it did we already have some in Soudi, Israel, Afghanistan, etc. Third, if our intel said Iraq wasn't involved, why would we choose that as a base? Fourth, there is more evidence to suggest that liberia is connected to Al Queada than Iraq was, so why isn't that a base of operations considerartion? This is, sorry, pretty weak.

The War with Iraq is part of the War on Terrorism. Can the Saudis be trusted. Afghanistan is a vacant lot not a nation. We are already viewed as being in Israel's pocket. Iraq is a fairly modern nation. Yes, being geographically close to the recruiting localities (Saudi Arabia, Syria, et al) for terrorist networks is naturally beneficial.

[robbie380]

Question One: If the reason for the war, as advocated to the world at large and the American people wasn't WMD alone, why did Bush repeatedly state that Iraq could avoid war by disarming?

Well, it could have been avoided by disarming, but disarming would also more than likely represent a fundamental change in the attitude of Saddam Hussein who has never showed any real progress towards disarming. I don't exactly know what you are looking for, but if he disarmed then he wouldn't be a threat. The reason why those other reasons were thrown out there (I am guessing like the fact that he is a murderer and bad guy and such) were political to help garner support for an attack since it seemed to be lacking in other nations. People seemed more content to continue on with the charade of weapons inspections. I believe that the bad guy aspect of Saddam was put out so people would also see that this guy is horrible and maybe make them realize that he would never be forthcoming on the inspections and that he was a major threat if left in power, to his people and everyone else. Someone who has no conscience with his own citizens would also more than likely have no conscience with other people.

Question Two: If the liberation of the Iraqi people was in itself sufficient justification for the war, why were the American people and the world at large not told this before the war? In fact, why were we told the reverse, as Wolfowitz stated in his interview with Vanity Fair "... there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two...The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. ?

I don't think liberation of the Iraqi people was enough justification for war in the eyes of America and the government. While I wish it were and I wish it were that easy, liberation and the human and economic costs that go along with it simply is not enough to justify American involvement. If that were true then I think we would have tried to "liberate" many other places. We were told in reverse because it is better PR. Also, I guess we were told in reverse in your eyes because the discoveries of mass graves and abuses have been more numerous than the discoveries of WMD evidence which is still a big mystery. I do think it will be uncovered since there are so many places to hide things there. I do like how we found like 30 fighter planes covered up in the sand...lol...great idea Iraqi air force. But that being discovered so long after major combat goes to show that there are many places that we don't even think of where WMD evidence could be hidden.

Question Three: If the administration is claiming that their belief that war was necessary based on the intel about Al Queda links with Iraq and the danger Iraq's WMD/nukes posed to America and Iraq's neighbours, why does the recently released NIE report reveal that the intel community repeatedly told the White House the exact opposite, that there was no link between Iraq and Al Queda, and that there was nothing to suggest that Iraq was any kind of threat to any other nation including the U.S?

Hey you got me there. We really don't know everything they know. I highly doubt they have declassified all the documents they have on Iraqi/Al-Queda links. Quite frankly I haven't been keeping up with things as much because I am sick of all the BS and incorrect predictions of what is going to happen. But didn't we find out that the connections between Al-Queda and Saddam were stronger than we thought. Maybe the administration knew something that wasn't widely known. Also, if Iraq supported Al-Queda and it was known then they would be a threat to the US.

Question Four: If our intel was saying no WMD, 9-11 connections, and we stated that freedom of the people was not sufficient ( as we are now saying about Liberia) cause to send in a major military force...what, then, made war with Iraq so necessary? What is it about Iraq that seperated it from, say, Liberia?

I don't remember if I already kind of answered this, but I think it was a combination of things. Saddam was a known rogue dictator who was hell bent on military power. That combined with his complete non-cooperation with the weapons inspections and treaty violations did not help things. There was also a worldwide concensus that the was in possession of chemical and biological weapons and that he was hiding them. The administration felt he had connections to Al-Queda as well. His non-cooperation combined with his hatred of the US combined with treaty violations combined with worldwide sentiment that he had WMDs combined with the administrations feeling that he was connected to Al-Queda combined with 9/11 and with the kicker of his horrible human rights abuses are what made the attack necessary.

Liberia is completely different because it is a civil war. Civil wars are very messy things to get involved in.

Question Five: If before the war there were numerous resignations and public statements from top intel and diplomatic officials vehemently criticizing the administration for seeking intel that supported it's argument rather than objective intelligence, and the released reports confirm that the intel which undermied the war position was made available to the administration, how can we buy the present argument that the White House was merely victims of being given incorrect intel?

I do think the administration tried to bolster its position rather than be objective. I don't think it was right, but at the same time I still think it was a war that needed to be fought. I think the administration suffered from caring about too much what world opinion thought and getting support from places where they were not going to get it from. If we would have presented what we knew rather than tried to make it sound much worse then I don't think it would have mattered. If we would have said we were simply removing Saddam from power because of his repeated violations of weapons inspections and non-cooperation and ties to Al-Queda then I think we would have been fine. The people who didn't want us to invade were not going to change their opinions no matter what. The people who wanted to invade were only more justified by what Bush said, but if he had not said it then they still would have wanted to take Saddam out. I think Bush suffered trying to convince people who would not be convinced. Hope that made some sense.

Question Six: If, as stated, the war was about the imminent threat of Iraqi WMD, including 'reconstituted nukes', and/or 'nuclear weapons programs weeks away from yielding active weapons', and 'hundreds of thousands of gallons of chemical gas'...at what point in the process of non-discovery will war supporters admit that the war was not justified as advertised?

As I said above I think there will be discoveries of the chem and bio weapons programs. There are so many places to hide things and thats all that Saddam ever did was hide things. They hid 30 freaking jets in the sand and it wasn't discovered until a couple weeks ago. I don't think everything will come out until he is dead. I will answer that question again a few months after we get Saddam.

Question Seven: If the declared war on terrorism was the priority it was said to be after 9-11, when and why did the focus shift to war with Iraq to the point where we diverted funding, intelligence resources, and personel away from pursuing Al Queada and into Iraq, especially given that our own intel said that Iraq was largely irrelevent to the war on terror?

I don't know and it pisses me off. I wish we would have taken care of Afghanistan better first and then taken a long hard look at the Iraqi situation. The war needed to be fought and I do think Saddam would have taken any chance to aid terrorists who wanted to attack the US. I mean we have never heard any charges of Saddam flat out denying to aid terrorists or telling them to get out of his country. We only had limited evidence that showed he supported them. Well we know he supported the Palestinian suicide bombers. Anyhow...Saddam is probably also the biggest enemy of the US and he had massive amounts of unaccounted chem and bio weapons as was acknowledged by the world community. The administration probably felt that Saddam would be the most likely candidate to supply chem, bio, or nuke weapons to terrorists. I wish we were still pursuing Al-Queda and fighting as hard in Afghanistan, but Iraq needed to be taken care of.

I hope that answers your questions....here is one for you MacBeth...how the hell do you find the time to do all this stuff? I mean geez I think this took me at least 40 minutes to think out my answers it seems like you'd be able to do something like this in 10 minutes if even that long. I feel like my mind is a tortise compared to your Porsche. ;)

[reallyBaked]

Question Four: If our intel was saying no WMD, 9-11 connections, and we stated that freedom of the people was not sufficient ( as we are now saying about Liberia) cause to send in a major military force...what, then, made war with Iraq so necessary? What is it about Iraq that seperated it from, say, Liberia?



Answer: OIL

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by giddyup
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MacBeth
[B]1) Doesn't answer the question. If action X will prevent war, then X must be, logically, the reason for war. Not the primary external reason, the only reason.

I don't think that follows. It was an offer from Bush not a de facto formula extracted from nature.


2) The interview was conducted very shortly after the war...what is your point? He was stating the White House's own position at the time...remeber, in the same interivew he was also reflecting the WH position at the time that WMD finds were pending, vans, etc., so they hadn't backed off onto the present attempt to repaint the picture as being about humanitarian causes yet. Wolfowitz himself stated that those reasons were not seen by the administration as enough to go to war...how can we later say that they are and were all along? And the SOTUA includes the statement that disarmament= no war, so I don't see how it supports your claim that it wasn't the prevailing issue. Yes, other benefits for the war were given...but not reasons for the war. There is a difference. You can have benefits from an action which don't justify said action in and of themselves.

I don't think they were repainting anything. The SOTU2003 primarily expressed humanitarian concerns.

I think that the Dems jockeyed the Admin into the WMD defense by persisting with that line of questioning. I think that all along they were hoping (knowing) they could paint the Admin into a corner with that issue.

3) The NIE represents the comprehensive intelligence community's assessment. If you chose another side from your primary organ of intelligence gathering/assessment, what does that say about what your motivation is, especially now that it has been shown to be incorrect? It's not simply a matter that there were tow equal sides presented and the WH chose to go with B over A, that's a complete cop-out. It was presented to them very clearly and comprehensively: No link to 9-11, no threat.

What has been shown to be incorrect? No WMDs? Too early to pass judgement.

4) Elaborate please.

Having a democratically stable Iraq will facilitate our idea of stabilizing the middle east.

5) A few? Try dozens, all told. And this was unprecedented...even VietNam didn't generate this kind of outcry from senior people inside the comminities in question. And, again, it seems more and more clear that they were right. And yes, vehement, these were people who were so dismayed by what they saw happening that threw away their careers...careers that had been under both parties, that had been to war before..and from the kinds of people, espeically in intel, who usually stay well back from the spotlight. I would say that that's pretty vehement.

I can only think of four or so. Is there a list available somewhere. Wasn't the most "vehement" proven to be a Democrat anyway?

6) So your answer is?

You haven't found your missing keys until you find your missing keys. It's not over yet.

7) Base of operations for the war on terrorism? You are suggesting that we pulled of resources trying to find AL Queda for real estate? First of all the war on terrorism doesn't rely on geographic bases of operations. Secondly if it did we already have some in Soudi, Israel, Afghanistan, etc. Third, if our intel said Iraq wasn't involved, why would we choose that as a base? Fourth, there is more evidence to suggest that liberia is connected to Al Queada than Iraq was, so why isn't that a base of operations considerartion? This is, sorry, pretty weak.

The War with Iraq is part of the War on Terrorism. Can the Saudis be trusted. Afghanistan is a vacant lot not a nation. We are already viewed as being in Israel's pocket. Iraq is a fairly modern nation. Yes, being geographically close to the recruiting localities (Saudi Arabia, Syria, et al) for terrorist networks is naturally beneficial.

1) It wasn't just an offer, it was a statement of intent, and he didn't just make it to Saddam, he made it to the Un and the American people. If it was an offer, Saddam maintained that he had disarmed...and it would appear that that might have been more correct than was thought. Either way, offer or statement, it carries the same message: the war is about disarmament.

2) Your opinion doesn't answer the question.

3) It's not too early to conclude that the threat, if there was one, wasn't imminent, but that's an aside. The NIE report wasn't one of many intel opinions, it was the sum total of intel opinions, and the WH said it based it's decisions on the intel available...how are those two facts reconciled? Still not answered.

4) Wouldn't a stable Liberia help Africa? Or a stable Congo? Or...you get my point. That is not what distinguishes Iraq, especially as it could be said about any number of other ME nations as well. The quiestion was, what made Iraq unique and imperative?

5) A list? Oh, god, I'm not good at that stuff ( FB? Woof? glynch?etc.) but you are honestly saying that you only saw four officials resign or protest our actions? Wow...I don't have an exact number, but for a while it was one or two a day. ANd half the population is Democrat, so it stands to reason that some of the protestors will be, but I don't know how you calculate who was the most vehement. Either way, even the Democrats involved had served under Republicans before with nary a peep.

6) OK, giddy, this is really dissapointing. In response to when will pro-war people admit no WMD's if the search continues to prove fruitless, you say...never? You say that until they are found the search isn't over? Isn't that sort of specious reasoning before the fact? If you conclude that there are lost keys, or WMDs, then you look until found...but the WMDs are not a known quantity like the keys...that's the whole point, isn't it?

7) Umm..if we can't trust our allies, why are we going to trust a nation we had to invade to have any say in? What does the relative esthetics of Afghanistan have to do with it's function as a base of operatins for a war on terrorism, especially when it was good enough, unlike Iraq, for a base of operations for the terrorists in question themselves? WHat does public perception of our relationship with terrorists have to do with the geography of the war on terrorism from an operations standpoint? Wouldn't actually being IN the recruiting area for terrorists be preferable to spending billions and taking away resources for the war on terrorism so that we can conquer someone who'se in the neighbourhood? Honestly, doesn't this argument seem a little weak to you? Are you just arguing this out of loyalty and habit?

[giddyup]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MacBeth
[B]1) It wasn't just an offer, it was a statement of intent, and he didn't just make it to Saddam, he made it to the Un and the American people. If it was an offer, Saddam maintained that he had disarmed...and it would appear that that might have been more correct than was thought. Either way, offer or statement, it carries the same message: the war is about disarmament.

Wasn't part of the UN resolution that Saddam account for the WMDs he previously had admitted to having and the world was witness to his using? He never did that.

2) Your opinion doesn't answer the question.

It's not my opinion. I another thread a month or so ago, I reprinted much of the SOTU2003. Very little of the section that dealt with Saddam dealth with WMDs.

3) It's not too early to conclude that the threat, if there was one, wasn't imminent, but that's an aside. The NIE report wasn't one of many intel opinions, it was the sum total of intel opinions, and the WH said it based it's decisions on the intel available...how are those two facts reconciled? Still not answered.

You're right. It's not. I'm not on the inside to help any either!

4) Wouldn't a stable Liberia help Africa? Or a stable Congo? Or...you get my point. That is not what distinguishes Iraq, especially as it could be said about any number of other ME nations as well. The quiestion was, what made Iraq unique and imperative?

Of course they would, but post-9/11 the middle east is still paramount politically.

5) A list? Oh, god, I'm not good at that stuff ( FB? Woof? glynch?etc.) but you are honestly saying that you only saw four officials resign or protest our actions? Wow...I don't have an exact number, but for a while it was one or two a day. ANd half the population is Democrat, so it stands to reason that some of the protestors will be, but I don't know how you calculate who was the most vehement. Either way, even the Democrats involved had served under Republicans before with nary a peep.

I think my characterization of the size and tone is more accurate than yours. I'm not good at lists either. Sorry.


6) OK, giddy, this is really dissapointing. In response to when will pro-war people admit no WMD's if the search continues to prove fruitless, you say...never? You say that until they are found the search isn't over? Isn't that sort of specious reasoning before the fact? If you conclude that there are lost keys, or WMDs, then you look until found...but the WMDs are not a known quantity like the keys...that's the whole point, isn't it?

Of course not. That's ridiculous. I'm only saying that now is way to early to make a final call on this matter. We are finding documentation of all sorts of things every week.

7) Umm..if we can't trust our allies, why are we going to trust a nation we had to invade to have any say in? What does the relative esthetics of Afghanistan have to do with it's function as a base of operatins for a war on terrorism, especially when it was good enough, unlike Iraq, for a base of operations for the terrorists in question themselves? WHat does public perception of our relationship with terrorists have to do with the geography of the war on terrorism from an operations standpoint? Wouldn't actually being IN the recruiting area for terrorists be preferable to spending billions and taking away resources for the war on terrorism so that we can conquer someone who'se in the neighbourhood? Honestly, doesn't this argument seem a little weak to you? Are you just arguing this out of loyalty and habit?

The Saudis are our uneasy allies at best. How many of bin Laden's hijackers were Saudi? Something is wrong there.

I'm not talking about the esthetics of Afghanistan; I'm talking about the infrastructure. That's why Iraq is preferrable to Afghanistan.

I was only talking about public perception of our relationship with Israel-- nothing else.

****************************************************

I HAVE TO STEP AWAY NOW. I HAVE HOUSEGUEST COMING AND I HAVE TO DO SOME MAJOR CLEANING BEFORE MRS. GIDDY AND THEY ARRIVE.

I DON'T HAVE A HAREM SURROUNDING ME! :D

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by robbie380
Question One: If the reason for the war, as advocated to the world at large and the American people wasn't WMD alone, why did Bush repeatedly state that Iraq could avoid war by disarming?

Well, it could have been avoided by disarming, but disarming would also more than likely represent a fundamental change in the attitude of Saddam Hussein who has never showed any real progress towards disarming. I don't exactly know what you are looking for, but if he disarmed then he wouldn't be a threat. The reason why those other reasons were thrown out there (I am guessing like the fact that he is a murderer and bad guy and such) were political to help garner support for an attack since it seemed to be lacking in other nations. People seemed more content to continue on with the charade of weapons inspections. I believe that the bad guy aspect of Saddam was put out so people would also see that this guy is horrible and maybe make them realize that he would never be forthcoming on the inspections and that he was a major threat if left in power, to his people and everyone else. Someone who has no conscience with his own citizens would also more than likely have no conscience with other people.

Question Two: If the liberation of the Iraqi people was in itself sufficient justification for the war, why were the American people and the world at large not told this before the war? In fact, why were we told the reverse, as Wolfowitz stated in his interview with Vanity Fair "... there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two...The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. ?

I don't think liberation of the Iraqi people was enough justification for war in the eyes of America and the government. While I wish it were and I wish it were that easy, liberation and the human and economic costs that go along with it simply is not enough to justify American involvement. If that were true then I think we would have tried to "liberate" many other places. We were told in reverse because it is better PR. Also, I guess we were told in reverse in your eyes because the discoveries of mass graves and abuses have been more numerous than the discoveries of WMD evidence which is still a big mystery. I do think it will be uncovered since there are so many places to hide things there. I do like how we found like 30 fighter planes covered up in the sand...lol...great idea Iraqi air force. But that being discovered so long after major combat goes to show that there are many places that we don't even think of where WMD evidence could be hidden.

Question Three: If the administration is claiming that their belief that war was necessary based on the intel about Al Queda links with Iraq and the danger Iraq's WMD/nukes posed to America and Iraq's neighbours, why does the recently released NIE report reveal that the intel community repeatedly told the White House the exact opposite, that there was no link between Iraq and Al Queda, and that there was nothing to suggest that Iraq was any kind of threat to any other nation including the U.S?

Hey you got me there. We really don't know everything they know. I highly doubt they have declassified all the documents they have on Iraqi/Al-Queda links. Quite frankly I haven't been keeping up with things as much because I am sick of all the BS and incorrect predictions of what is going to happen. But didn't we find out that the connections between Al-Queda and Saddam were stronger than we thought. Maybe the administration knew something that wasn't widely known. Also, if Iraq supported Al-Queda and it was known then they would be a threat to the US.

Question Four: If our intel was saying no WMD, 9-11 connections, and we stated that freedom of the people was not sufficient ( as we are now saying about Liberia) cause to send in a major military force...what, then, made war with Iraq so necessary? What is it about Iraq that seperated it from, say, Liberia?

I don't remember if I already kind of answered this, but I think it was a combination of things. Saddam was a known rogue dictator who was hell bent on military power. That combined with his complete non-cooperation with the weapons inspections and treaty violations did not help things. There was also a worldwide concensus that the was in possession of chemical and biological weapons and that he was hiding them. The administration felt he had connections to Al-Queda as well. His non-cooperation combined with his hatred of the US combined with treaty violations combined with worldwide sentiment that he had WMDs combined with the administrations feeling that he was connected to Al-Queda combined with 9/11 and with the kicker of his horrible human rights abuses are what made the attack necessary.

Liberia is completely different because it is a civil war. Civil wars are very messy things to get involved in.

Question Five: If before the war there were numerous resignations and public statements from top intel and diplomatic officials vehemently criticizing the administration for seeking intel that supported it's argument rather than objective intelligence, and the released reports confirm that the intel which undermied the war position was made available to the administration, how can we buy the present argument that the White House was merely victims of being given incorrect intel?

I do think the administration tried to bolster its position rather than be objective. I don't think it was right, but at the same time I still think it was a war that needed to be fought. I think the administration suffered from caring about too much what world opinion thought and getting support from places where they were not going to get it from. If we would have presented what we knew rather than tried to make it sound much worse then I don't think it would have mattered. If we would have said we were simply removing Saddam from power because of his repeated violations of weapons inspections and non-cooperation and ties to Al-Queda then I think we would have been fine. The people who didn't want us to invade were not going to change their opinions no matter what. The people who wanted to invade were only more justified by what Bush said, but if he had not said it then they still would have wanted to take Saddam out. I think Bush suffered trying to convince people who would not be convinced. Hope that made some sense.

Question Six: If, as stated, the war was about the imminent threat of Iraqi WMD, including 'reconstituted nukes', and/or 'nuclear weapons programs weeks away from yielding active weapons', and 'hundreds of thousands of gallons of chemical gas'...at what point in the process of non-discovery will war supporters admit that the war was not justified as advertised?

As I said above I think there will be discoveries of the chem and bio weapons programs. There are so many places to hide things and thats all that Saddam ever did was hide things. They hid 30 freaking jets in the sand and it wasn't discovered until a couple weeks ago. I don't think everything will come out until he is dead. I will answer that question again a few months after we get Saddam.

Question Seven: If the declared war on terrorism was the priority it was said to be after 9-11, when and why did the focus shift to war with Iraq to the point where we diverted funding, intelligence resources, and personel away from pursuing Al Queada and into Iraq, especially given that our own intel said that Iraq was largely irrelevent to the war on terror?

I don't know and it pisses me off. I wish we would have taken care of Afghanistan better first and then taken a long hard look at the Iraqi situation. The war needed to be fought and I do think Saddam would have taken any chance to aid terrorists who wanted to attack the US. I mean we have never heard any charges of Saddam flat out denying to aid terrorists or telling them to get out of his country. We only had limited evidence that showed he supported them. Well we know he supported the Palestinian suicide bombers. Anyhow...Saddam is probably also the biggest enemy of the US and he had massive amounts of unaccounted chem and bio weapons as was acknowledged by the world community. The administration probably felt that Saddam would be the most likely candidate to supply chem, bio, or nuke weapons to terrorists. I wish we were still pursuing Al-Queda and fighting as hard in Afghanistan, but Iraq needed to be taken care of.

I hope that answers your questions....here is one for you MacBeth...how the hell do you find the time to do all this stuff? I mean geez I think this took me at least 40 minutes to think out my answers it seems like you'd be able to do something like this in 10 minutes if even that long. I feel like my mind is a tortise compared to your Porsche. ;)




1) It would seem that you and I are almost in agreement on no. 1; you are admitting that WMD was the cause, and that the other stuff, some of it valid, was window dressing in terms of justification. Where we disagree are the following: If it turns out that there are no WMD, or at least that any threat they represented was nullified, how can you say the inspections weren't doing their job? If the intel community said that the inspections were preventing Saddam from acting on his wishes, that was mission accomplished. No treaty ever designed will or should deal with what a person might want to do, only with their actions. And again, if no WMD were found, according to your reasoning, does that constitute evidence that Saddam underwent some osrt of conscience transfusion? I think we get too caugt up in painting our enemies with absolute brushes...dismarming/ not using WMDs might not need a new conscience, but merely a sense of survival, and he showed that sense by not using them when he had them in GW1.

2) We pretty much agree here too. I am not pro-genocide, I merely feel that the threat of individual nations taking it upon themselves to decide when and where to intervene, especially in the face of global opposition, is greater to the planet in general and that nation in particular, and also succeptible to gross misuse and corruption. I supported GW1 because it was a reflection of a common judgment, and as such less succeptible to corruption, and culturally biased judgment. Not feeling that Saddam's tyranny supported unilateral war does not equate to supporting Saddam's actions, or lessen my grief about them.

3) I am unaware of any findings about connections between the two pre-war. I am also deeply suspicious of the assumption that 'they probably have evidence, but just can't show us.' in that it was that assumption that is largely responsible for us being in this mess to begin with.

4) The 'fact' that Saddam was completely uncooperatve and the worldwide concensus was, it should be reminded, based on our intelligence reports. That is worth keeping in mind. I assumed he was lying too, so I'm not saying I told you so here, but it should be noted that Iraq has maintained for a while that it has been destroying stuff, and that a lot of the 'unaccounted' for materials were merely the result of having degraded, or poor record keeping. Now while I was deeply suspicious of that rational to begin with, it should be noted that the US 'loses' much more than the unaccounted for stuff every year to similar causes, and that, well, we have yet to find them. If we continue to not find anything approaching the numbers we said he was lying about, logic would dictate that we should probably reconsider our suppositions about his non-co-operation and lies. He may have merely included enough bluster while co operating to make him seem less weak to his followers.

His hatred of the US is, I think, somewhat understandable given our history with him, but even more irrelevent in the face of knowledge that A) Several other nations hate us at least as much, many of them with more weapons, clearer ties to terrorism...and some of them are our allies.and B) Our own organ of intel said that his hared was pretty impotent, and didn't constitue a threat. And while speaking of hatred between Iraq and the US, it should be noted that we have attacked them twice, they have attacked us, directly or indirectly, zero times.Which one of us has potentially let emotions cloud our judgement?

And, yes, civil war is messy. So is invasion. I don't see how one os more messy to an outside force than another. Internally, yes, but I would hardly call the present situation in Iraq clean.

5) We disagree about whether this war needed to be fought, but are probably in agreement about how the administration went about making sure that it was. I certainly disagree that this administration cared too much about world opinion, quite the opposite IMO, and Bush's father's opinion, among many. And the polls don't support your contention that they didn't need to say WNDs to get support. Before they said WMDs/nukes the support wasn't there, afterwards it shot up...pretty clear, IMO.

6) Can you give a rough estimation of how long we should wait before a Mea Culpa?

7) Our intelligence dissgrees with your assertion that Saddam would have given aid to terrorists at any opportunity, in fact they were of the contrary opinion; that he was first and foremost a political survivor, and that attacking us even indirectly would be contrary to that agenda. I don't see how we could ever produce evidence of him NOT supporting terrorism, sort of hard to do, but we do know that no link exists of the opposite. The NIE report says clearly: no threat, either through conventional attacks, WMDs, or supplying same to terrorists opposed to us. The intel community are our eyes and ears on the subject...if the WH was ignoring it's eyes and ears, what sense was it using to determine this imminent threat?


In response to your question, thanks for the complimants, but it's not really anything worthy of admiration; I just sort of let the flow go from my head to my fingers, and awkwardly at that. It probably reflects more time thinking about these things in general rather than specifically addressing them at the time of posting.

[padgett316]

I continue to be amazed at the handful of people in this country who think that our freedom comes without a cost. I am further amazed that there are actually people who allege to believe that because other countries were willing to stand idly by during Operation Iraqi Freedom (while simultaneously rendering the almighty UN impotent and irrelevant), that somehow makes the US misled or misguided in its attempts to bring peace and freedom to not just its own people but others under the wrath of a ruthless, murdering tyrant.

I also wonder why CBSCNNABCNBC have not broadcast this statistic: 66 Washington DC citizens have been murdered since May 1, compared to 52 US soliders in Iraq. Where is the quagmire now?

It is not GWB's fault, nor is it the US's fault, that democracy and freedom have not materialized quicker in Iraq. It is the fault of those who failed to stand on the side of freedom, both here and internationally.

[mc mark]

answer the questions

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by padgett316
I continue to be amazed at the handful of people in this country who think that our freedom comes without a cost. I am further amazed that there are actually people who allege to believe that because other countries were willing to stand idly by during Operation Iraqi Freedom (while simultaneously rendering the almighty UN impotent and irrelevant), that somehow makes the US misled or misguided in its attempts to bring peace and freedom to not just its own people but others under the wrath of a ruthless, murdering tyrant.

I also wonder why CBSCNNABCNBC have not broadcast this statistic: 66 Washington DC citizens have died since May 1, compared to 52 US soliders in Iraq. It is not GWB's fault, nor is it the US's fault, that democracy and freedom have not materialized quicker in Iraq. It is the fault of those who failed to stand on the side of freedom.


But don't you see that that's just it; It's the refusal to admit that real freedom has a cost that lead to this war and things like the Patriot Act.

The premise of limiting civil liberties, or pre-emptive war defies the principle of freedom. We have gotten so soft that we forget that things like 9-11, in one form or another, have been the cost of the pursuit of freedom as long as it's been around. Our refusal to accept that cost has us ducking behind our army or losing a grip on our liberties out of fear for our lives and creature comforts.

In a free society the administration doesn't manipulate the information to get the people to do what it wants, it puts the case before them openly and responds to their will.

We are not in Iraq standing for freedom; we have already told them they can't have the kind of governemnt their people want, and have told others that past politicial affiliation ( without trials, convictions, or in many cases accusations of any crime) means that they cannot take part in the governement of their own country.

This administration cries freedom, all right, but defies it in practice after practice. If we are willing to pay the price for freedom, as you say, we cannot seek to take it away from others who we feel might want to do us harm without taking it away from all of us.


Edit: and, yeah, answer the questions.

[r35352]

I won't answer each question in turn but I will provide the obvious explanation which answers them all.

IMO, the answer is that the administration wanted to remake the Middle East due to various geo-political and geo-strategic reasons. The situation in Iraq made an invasion and occupation of Iraq possible because there was enough pretense avaliable to justify such an action. The US could claim Iraq was in violation of UN resolutions, Saddam as a tyrant, Saddam wasn't cooperating enough with inspectors, he helped Al-Queda in the 09-11 attacks, etc.

It didn't matter whether these pretenses were credible or not. The administration had decided, a priori, that invasion and occupation of Iraq would serve US interests and then sought as many justifications as possible afterwards to sell the war.

Of course I'm not pointing out anything that isn't already obvious to most of us. And war supporters should just admit that this is in fact what happenend.

[padgett316]

There is obviously a delicate tension between "open government" and "protecting sensitive national security interests". I choose to believe that the more that our intelligence and military leaders are allowed to do their jobs without being quizzed incessantly, the more effective they will be able to perform. I think anyone who complains about the imposing nature of the "Patriot Act" but fails to wholeheartedly support our actions in liberating the Iraqi people is a spoiled-rotten hypocrite. You people want it both ways, and it simply can't always be had.

This issue is one of greater weight than your 7 pinpointed questions suggests. Of course you can pick and choose all the minor inconsistencies you like, and I believe that you are doing so because you hate GWB and you hate the conservative majority in this country. I am of the belief that GWB is an incredibly honest and determined leader of our nation. I want answers, too. But I was listening when we were told repeatedly for months upon end that this war was not one that would resolve itself overnight. All you armchair-executives out there who think you can do a better job should get out and run for office yourselves. You are playing with a half-a-deck - telling everyone why you're right and they're wrong, when you can't possibly know enough to make the right decision. Why do you insist on ignoring those experts who have testified to Congress in closed meetings who indicate that all the proof is there, but that the clamoring liberal hatefest is not going to change the fact that some things take time and need to go undisclosed until greater gains are made.

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by r35352
I won't answer each question in turn but I will provide the obvious explanation which answers them all.

IMO, the answer is that the administration wanted to remake the Middle East due to various geo-political and geo-strategic reasons. The situation in Iraq made an invasion and occupation of Iraq possible because there was enough pretense avaliable to justify such an action. The US could claim Iraq was in violation of UN resolutions, Saddam as a tyrant, Saddam wasn't cooperating enough with inspectors, he helped Al-Queda in the 09-11 attacks, etc.

It didn't matter whether these pretenses were credible or not. The administration had decided, a priori, that invasion and occupation of Iraq would serve US interests and then sought as many justifications as possible afterwards to sell the war.

Of course I'm not pointing out anything that isn't already obvious to most of us. And war supporters should just admit that this is in fact what happenend.

Pretty much bang on, IMO.

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by padgett316
There is obviously a delicate tension between "open government" and "protecting sensitive national security interests". I choose to believe that the more that our intelligence and military leaders are allowed to do their jobs without being quizzed incessantly, the more effective they will be able to perform. I think anyone who complains about the imposing nature of the "Patriot Act" but fails to wholeheartedly support our actions in liberating the Iraqi people is a spoiled-rotten hypocrite. You people want it both ways, and it simply can't always be had.

This issue is one of greater weight than your 7 pinpointed questions suggests. Of course you can pick and choose all the minor inconsistencies you like, and I believe that you are doing so because you hate GWB and you hate the conservative majority in this country. I am of the belief that GWB is an incredibly honest and determined leader of our nation. I want answers, too. But I was listening when we were told repeatedly for months upon end that this war was not one that would resolve itself overnight. All you armchair-executives out there who think you can do a better job should get out and run for office yourselves. You are playing with a half-a-deck - telling everyone why you're right and they're wrong, when you can't possibly know enough to make the right decision. Why do you insist on ignoring those experts who have testified to Congress in closed meetings who indicate that all the proof is there, but that the clamoring liberal hatefest is not going to change the fact that some things take time and need to go undisclosed until greater gains are made.

There are so many things wrong with this statement, and maybe I'll tackle them later, but to begin with, this one:


" Of course you can pick and choose all the minor inconsistencies you like, and I believe that you are doing so because you hate GWB and you hate the conservative majority in this country."



Small point...I supported Bush in the last election.

[padgett316]

So did you expect the Bush administration to come out in advance of the war and precisely label each and every directive that they intended to achieve? How precise could they possibly be when they're dealing with a notoriously elusive violator of numerous UN resolutions who never gives a straight answer to anything? Their problem may be that there were so many good reasons to invade Iraq that they glossed over all of them, leaving the opportunity open for critics to come back and nitpick 16 word phrases and questionable intelligence weeks after the major combat ended. The problem I see is that our nation may soon be paralyzed by the political rhetoric that plagues every facet of government from local to state to Washington.

[padgett316]

Who is not better off today, aside from obviously the 200 or so fallen soldiers and their families? As a whole, the Middle East necessarily must be more stable with Hussein, Inc. out of power. Terrorists have one less nation's desert in which to hide out and train. The Iraqi people can speak and live under some semblance of free will, without fear of their families being raped and murdered. Where exactly is the problem? I realize that the political prelude to the war was not perfect, but when in the history of the world was it perfect? If perfection will be required for our nation to defend itself, then we will not be free much longer.

[r35352]

Originally posted by padgett316
Who is not better off today, aside from obviously the 200 or so fallen soldiers and their families? As a whole, the Middle East necessarily must be more stable with Hussein, Inc. out of power. Terrorists have one less nation's desert in which to hide out and train. The Iraqi people can speak and live under some semblance of free will, without fear of their families being raped and murdered. Where exactly is the problem? I realize that the political prelude to the war was not perfect, but when in the history of the world was it perfect? If perfection will be required for our nation to defend itself, then we will not be free much longer.

I guess you and other war supporters don't care whether a govt lies and manipulates facts or not as long as the end result appears to be sufficiently good to justify lies, deceptions and manipulations. But I and others very much do care.

Remember the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution in which the US claimed North Vietnam attacked US ships unprovoked and the Johnson regime then used that as pretext to "retaliate" and expand the war against North Vietnam? Well we now know that this was a blantant lie and fabrication. One could of course argue that it doesn't matter that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was fabricated because there was a "bigger picture".

But the point FOR ME is that a democratic govt being as truthful as possible to its own people and not to deceive its own people is ITSELF part of the "big picture".

[padgett316]

I don't believe anyone has uncovered anything close to a Tonkin-esque lie. The leftists and peacemongers have picked apart every statement by every leader in this administration in hopes of finding one. All they've found is unanswered questions and murky intelligence issues, which everyone knew made up the premise of this entire war anyway, including all the legislators on Capitol Hill who voted to engage in this conflict.

By the way, I'm mad as hell at President Bush for failing to do anything to cut the absurd spending levels in his government. It's complete insanity. I have issues with his failure to speak out on the Supreme Court's absolutely abhorrent decisions this summer. So I'm by no means a Bush apologist.

[mc mark]

peacemongers?

Hey! I like that! I'm a peacemonger!

[Deuce Rings]

MacBeth, it seems to me that the majority of your seven questions are based on the semantics Bush used to justify his war in Iraq. The problem is, people like me who you are debating with don't think (and in my case, never have thought) that WMD's were the reason we were going into Iraq. WMD's certainly provided the best rallying call to get public and maybe even world support (even though that clearly failed) for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. I believe 1000 percent that the reason for the U.S. occupation of Iraq is Iraq's geographic location in the middle east combined with two points: (1) That Iraq was lead by one of the most recognized of the world's vicious tyrants that even the most harsh critics of Bush's war would not miss, and (2) Saudi Arabia, historically the U.S.'s strongest Arab ally in the region, had just asked for the U.S. to remove their troops from their soil. Qatar is nice, but is far too small and unstable of a country to be viewed as a permanent location for a U.S. military base in the region. Furthermore, a base in Qatar means you have to fly over many middle eastern countries which may no longer allow U.S. planes to do that in order to get to countries like Syria, Lebanon, etc without a fleet of aircraft carriers.
Furthermore, the Iraqi people present one of the most educated people found in the region. In addition to Iraq's strategic geographic location, their people represent a possibility (how possible is up for debate) that a democracy could flourish in the region and if the U.S. could maintain good relations with such a country in the middle east, it could be another chip on the U.S.'s side when dealing with the region. Some will argue what business does the U.S. have changing parts of the world that they do not govern? My answer would be historically none, but history changed on September 11th, 2001. The old rules no longer apply and since terrorism is born out of problems in middle eastern culture, the best means of stopping that terrorism short of genocide is to try and somehow change that culture. One way to change that culture is to create a democratic example like Iraq. If, and many would argue, when that fails, at least you have a large military base in Iraq.
Finally, the U.S. offensive against Iraq dispelled a myth that had emboldened middle easterners harboring ill will against the west over the past decade. Word on the Arab street I can tell you firsthand was that the U.S. was a nation of cowards, too afraid of seeing their own blood. Basically that the U.S. was too weak a country to ever fight a ground war against a foreign army. There were many in the middle east prior to a couple of months ago that really genuinely believed that Saddam Hussein's armies would emerge victorious in a ground war against them due to the weaker American enemy. That line of thinking probably contributed to emboldening terrorists to strike out against American interests. That myth has now been dispelled and the doubters of the Arab world has once again seen that no army in their region stands a chance against the American military machine.
My point is, your 7 questions were loaded based on your personal view of the current situation. I do not believe that the WMD argument was the real reason we went into Iraq. I don't think history will either.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by giddyup


Of course they would, but post-9/11 the middle east is still paramount politically.

Hey Giddy, I know you may not be able to read this because of house guests, but I'm replying anyway.

the ME may be a key region, but Charles Taylor of Liberia had more Ties to Al Qaeda than Saddam did. It's just strange that establishing a base wasn't one of the reasons given if that's a reason why it was necessary.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by padgett316
Who is not better off today, aside from obviously the 200 or so fallen soldiers and their families? As a whole, the Middle East necessarily must be more stable with Hussein, Inc. out of power. Terrorists have one less nation's desert in which to hide out and train. The Iraqi people can speak and live under some semblance of free will, without fear of their families being raped and murdered. Where exactly is the problem? I realize that the political prelude to the war was not perfect, but when in the history of the world was it perfect? If perfection will be required for our nation to defend itself, then we will not be free much longer.

Well first of all of the 60 nations listed by the Bush ADministrations own highlighted map 1 week after 9/11, Iraq wasn't one of them. Iraq was not a haven for terrorists compared to other nations in the region or in Africa. With Hussein out of power, the nonexistent terrorist training facilities still aren't there, but we do know that Al Qaeda is still active in Afghanistan and wasn't really active in Iraq and yet we pulled resources from Afghanistan to devote to Iraq. It doesn't make too much sense.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
the ME may be a key region, but Charles Taylor of Liberia had more Ties to Al Qaeda than Saddam did. It's just strange that establishing a base wasn't one of the reasons given if that's a reason why it was necessary.
Was there ever any doubt that we would have to stay behind in Iraq for a good while?

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by giddyup
Was there ever any doubt that we would have to stay behind in Iraq for a good while?

I don't know the answer. In my mind I believed we would, but the Bush administration still isn't saying how long we will be there, nor are they including in Iraqi costs in their budget proposals. Instead they opt to just present suplemental request after suplemental request. Prior to the war people tried to get them to say how long we would be in Iraq over and over again and the administration never did.

Also in making a case for the war, leaving things up to assumptions seems like poor leadership.

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by Deuce Rings
MacBeth, it seems to me that the majority of your seven questions are based on the semantics Bush used to justify his war in Iraq. The problem is, people like me who you are debating with don't think (and in my case, never have thought) that WMD's were the reason we were going into Iraq. WMD's certainly provided the best rallying call to get public and maybe even world support (even though that clearly failed) for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. I believe 1000 percent that the reason for the U.S. occupation of Iraq is Iraq's geographic location in the middle east combined with two points: (1) That Iraq was lead by one of the most recognized of the world's vicious tyrants that even the most harsh critics of Bush's war would not miss, and (2) Saudi Arabia, historically the U.S.'s strongest Arab ally in the region, had just asked for the U.S. to remove their troops from their soil. Qatar is nice, but is far too small and unstable of a country to be viewed as a permanent location for a U.S. military base in the region. Furthermore, a base in Qatar means you have to fly over many middle eastern countries which may no longer allow U.S. planes to do that in order to get to countries like Syria, Lebanon, etc without a fleet of aircraft carriers.
Furthermore, the Iraqi people present one of the most educated people found in the region. In addition to Iraq's strategic geographic location, their people represent a possibility (how possible is up for debate) that a democracy could flourish in the region and if the U.S. could maintain good relations with such a country in the middle east, it could be another chip on the U.S.'s side when dealing with the region. Some will argue what business does the U.S. have changing parts of the world that they do not govern? My answer would be historically none, but history changed on September 11th, 2001. The old rules no longer apply and since terrorism is born out of problems in middle eastern culture, the best means of stopping that terrorism short of genocide is to try and somehow change that culture. One way to change that culture is to create a democratic example like Iraq. If, and many would argue, when that fails, at least you have a large military base in Iraq.
Finally, the U.S. offensive against Iraq dispelled a myth that had emboldened middle easterners harboring ill will against the west over the past decade. Word on the Arab street I can tell you firsthand was that the U.S. was a nation of cowards, too afraid of seeing their own blood. Basically that the U.S. was too weak a country to ever fight a ground war against a foreign army. There were many in the middle east prior to a couple of months ago that really genuinely believed that Saddam Hussein's armies would emerge victorious in a ground war against them due to the weaker American enemy. That line of thinking probably contributed to emboldening terrorists to strike out against American interests. That myth has now been dispelled and the doubters of the Arab world has once again seen that no army in their region stands a chance against the American military machine.
My point is, your 7 questions were loaded based on your personal view of the current situation. I do not believe that the WMD argument was the real reason we went into Iraq. I don't think history will either.

Without getting into debating your reasoning for why you think the war is justified, let me say this, and this goes for all those who'd rather say why they approve of removing Saddam than answer the questions:

The point isn't whether you or I or George W. Bush thinks that there are good reasons for the war. The point is, in a representative government, it isn't up to you, or I, or Dubya, it's up to the people as a whole. In order to make the decision of whether or not we should go to war, the people as a whole need the government to put the facts before them, without bias, manipulation, or outright lies, and based on those facts make a decision. In this case the argument presented was about WMD ( if you disagree, answer the questions), and other issues, such as 9-11 and Saddam's brutal rule were offered as additional benefits. The facts presented to the people, to Congress, and indeed to our allies when we sought their help were, at best, errors made as a result of a biased means of gathering them. That is the issue...not whether, after the fact, people ( most of whom support Bush pro facto, or thin the US should be more aggressive in general) think that reasons other than those presented to the people are sufficient. They weren't sufficient to the majority at the time the decision was being made, period.


We say that tyranny is wrong. We say we want to bring democracy to the middle east in order to stabalize the region. How can we do this when our own government skipped an important step in the process of responsible government? Once those in power decide for the rest of us, whether it's with a gun or a lie, we are no different in principle from the tyranny we oppose, only in the particulars of practice.

[StupidMoniker]

Originally posted by MacBeth
The point isn't whether you or I or George W. Bush thinks that there are good reasons for the war. The point is, in a representative government, it isn't up to you, or I, or Dubya, it's up to the people as a whole. In order to make the decision of whether or not we should go to war, the people as a whole need the government to put the facts before them, without bias, manipulation, or outright lies, and based on those facts make a decision.

This is just flat out wrong. You know that is not the way a representative democracy works. We elect leaders to make decisions, sadly based mostly on soundbites and negative advertising. They are not supposed to take polls and determine how the public feels about any particular action. It is the discretion of the president to use the military to defend national security for up to 90 days without even the authorization of congress. It is up to congress to declare war. There is no provision that the people must be given all (or even any) of the reasons for war. If the majority in congress feels that they were duped into war and would reverse that decision now, that would be one thing. That has not happened (to my knowledge).

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by StupidMoniker
This is just flat out wrong. You know that is not the way a representative democracy works. We elect leaders to make decisions, sadly based mostly on soundbites and negative advertising. They are not supposed to take polls and determine how the public feels about any particular action. It is the discretion of the president to use the military to defend national security for up to 90 days without even the authorization of congress. It is up to congress to declare war. There is no provision that the people must be given all (or even any) of the reasons for war. If the majority in congress feels that they were duped into war and would reverse that decision now, that would be one thing. That has not happened (to my knowledge).


It's the information provided to Congress that I'm talking about, isn't it? That is the forum we have for the people being represented, and the Congressional reps are supposed to reflect the desires of their people. They are Representatives, not rulers.

[SaFe]

Remember World War II, we needed pearl harbor to convince the American people to fight Hitler. I don't know how relevent this is, but maybe the American people aren't as easy to be convinced into a war as you think. I mean, if Hitler causing chaos in Europe couldn't do it, how could anything Saddam be doing top that. As much as people hate the fact that they got lied to, if Bush truly had a strong case for going to war, he did what was neccessary to convince the American people. We will just have to see...

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by SaFe
Remember World War II, we needed pearl harbor to convince the American people to fight Hitler. I don't know how relevent this is, but maybe the American people aren't as easy to be convinced into a war as you think. I mean, if Hitler causing chaos in Europe couldn't do it, how could anything Saddam be doing top that. As much as people hate the fact that they got lied to, if Bush truly had a strong case for going to war, he did what was neccessary to convince the American people. We will just have to see...


I personaly have no problem with a people not being easily convinced to go to war. In fact I can think of few things I would suggest should need a higher degree of convincing before acting upon than the decision to begin a war.


That said, that's the nature of the beast. Democracy isn't a fast moving system, never has been. It has strengths and weaknesses...one of those, and I'm not sure which, is that it's usually very slow acting when it comes to engaging in wars. But that's part of it. For the government to circumvent that aspect of it by overriding the very nature of responsible government is, in effect and in principle, taking the responsibility out of the hands into which our system says it belongs...government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

You are right that FDR was presented with a mich more compelling reason to go to war...you are right that the people didn't want to. Ask yourself this: why do you think he didn't lie to get us to? Do you not think he knew it was an option? Or do you think that he knew what that would mean to the future of our system?

[StupidMoniker]

Originally posted by MacBeth
It's the information provided to Congress that I'm talking about, isn't it? That is the forum we have for the people being represented, and the Congressional reps are supposed to reflect the desires of their people. They are Representatives, not rulers.

They are supposed to reflect the desires of the people insofar as the people determine who the representatives are and who gets to stay a representative once they leave office. They were never meant to poll the people on every issue and do what the results say (ie the Clinton approach). We elect leaders, ostensibly, to do what THEY think is in the best interest of their constituency. In actuality, our leaders our elected for much sadder reasons and their function is to get reelected. If you think that all the congressmen authorized the president to invade Iraq only based on WMD, then 1) they should all be railing against the President now (are they?) and 2) you are assuming you know what hundreds of very different people were thinking (I could not tell you why various congresspeople voted for war). Is it possible that the (republican majority) congress thought about a lot of the same issues that have been raised on this board when making a decision on going to war? We will see how much the average American really opposes the war when elections roll around. I do not predict huge turnover in congress.

[Dark Rhino]

Regarding question six:

If, as stated, the war was about the imminent threat of Iraqi WMD, including 'reconstituted nukes', and/or 'nuclear weapons programs weeks away from yielding active weapons', and 'hundreds of thousands of gallons of chemical gas'...at what point in the process of non-discovery will war supporters admit that the war was not justified as advertised?

perhaps this article pulled from the TCS: Defense website might shed some light on the subject.

Germs of Truth
By Russell Seitz 05/08/2003



The favorite subject of those who opposed the war in Iraq is the coalition's failure to find the 4,000 barrels of chemical and biological warfare agents that President Bush invoked in justifying it. However, they tend to ignore the less convenient facts of the matter. There is a world of hurt in 500 tons of such malignant stuff, but in such a modest volume - roughly a twenty-five foot cube - the trucks carrying it can disappear into a fair sized traffic jam.

War gases and most of the chemicals that go into them are flammable. Indeed, America is disposing of the nerve gas once present in its arsenals by incineration. Biological agents are even more heat sensitive. When heated past 700 Fahrenheit, they become hard to tell from burnt toast. 500 tons is a drop in the bucket compared to the volume of burning oil that went up in smoke during the war. What proved useless as an aircraft deterrent may still have exemplified the principle of a dual use technology: Oil trench fires make dandy funeral pyres for immolating the evidence of non-nuclear ambition.

If the corpus delecti has already become part of the smog inventory over the Indian Ocean, score one for Saddam. The administration will feel the heat for as long as it takes to dig up Iraq's national stockpile of sand. The truth will out, but even with help from liberated scientists, this could be a big dig. The Democrats and diplomats demanding to know the fate of Iraq's slippery arsenal just don't want to hear how many suburbs of Ur of the Chaldees have eluded archaeological recovery for the last million days. Somebody may turn up a plague infested carcass chucked into Baghdad by the Mongols in 1258 before the modern skunk juice comes to light. A lot of the chemical munitions that went unused in World War II are still rotting on the bottom of the Baltic.

To understand the hunt for contraband weapons today, consider what followed the last Gulf War. In its aftermath the problem was less finding the evidence than recognizing it for what it was - no single inspector was familiar with the bewildering variety of good, bad, and ugly technology that Saddam's technicians had acquired. This led to vast confusion and a feeding frenzy among policy analysts.

Many feared the worst. Along with a nuclear weapons program, UN inspectors found an arsenal of chemical weapons and dual use materials. A lot of it could be equally well applied to the growth and culture of lethal organisms or toxins, or the production of life saving antibiotics. There are even some biological culture medium ingredients that could be harmlessly employed to augment the formula of baby milk.

Looking over what others and I wrote in those heady days, one finds some themes that are being repeated. And others that are in danger of being forgotten, if not deliberately repressed.

Iraq, like Pakistan, had sent its best and brightest west to get PhD's in nuclear science and chemical engineering. These young people showed a lot of initiative in reviving ways and means of enriching uranium that had largely been forgotten by the existing nuclear powers. Between 1992 and 2002, these people didn't go away - they grew older and more knowledgeable.

The inspectors who arrived in 1992 found gadgets for uranium enrichment on an industrial scale. Analysts' jaws dropped as they realized that some Iraqi expertise stemmed from efforts to publicize proliferation risks in order to stem them. That these technologies were now obsolete did not mean that they did not work. Publishing the blueprints of old Manhattan Project facilities proved to be a handy shortcut on the road to nuclear ubiquity.

Following the Iraqis into the pre-history of atomic weapons, we found another risk: neptunium. This third nuclear fuel languished in obscurity for decades, but tens of tons of it, like plutonium, were produced in the course of generating nuclear power. But while plutonium from spent fuel is carefully safeguarded as weapons material, the neptunium's weapons potential went unrealized. It collected in repositories whose main line of defense was that their contents were too hot to handle.

But such radioactivity fades away in a matter of decades: people live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, too. By the time of the Gulf War, some vintage neptunium had cooled down a thousand fold, and become fit for weapons use. But this problem went undiscovered by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and its director Hans Blix.

No IAEA safeguards existed in 1990, when an examination of the physics revealed the problem. The response to the publication of the facts was immediate - a fusillade of denial. Letters and articles appeared saying neptunium posed no threat at all. I found this baffling, but lacking additional data I assumed that my numbers were outclassed by classified ones.

In fact, the numbers were correct - the denials were a disinformation operation designed to buy time for the IAEA to rectify its failure of oversight, and the Department of Energy to circle its wagons around undefended tons of weapons grade neptunium. Last fall the DOE brought the first neptunium fueled nuclear reactor to criticality: an unsuspected
nuclear weapons material had become a source of nuclear energy.

Another irony may be playing out today in Iraq. Just as we lost track of a major nuclear proliferation hazard for decades, we tend to forget the symmetry of dual use technologies and materials. Chemicals with innocent or even life-saving uses may become feed stocks for nerve gas manufacture or biological warfare. But some times a cigar is a cigar.

A few weeks ago, troops clad cap a pied in sweltering CBW protective gear probed containers in the Iraqi desert for nerve gas. The false alarms produced by empty insecticide drums were not surprising, because organophosphate nerve gases are an offshoot of organophosphate insecticide research. This raises a question doves dislike: were Iraq's dual-use chemicals disposed of the old-fashioned way, by using them to manufacture mundane agrochemicals?

Iraq possesses a full-blown phosphate fertilizer industry (like America's, it produces uranium as a by-product) and all it needs to refine petroleum and manufacture organic chemicals. Some chemicals can be incorporated into organophosphate nerve gases and insecticides alike: little wonder chemical warfare test kits often give false positives.

Just as the transformation of neptunium into nuclear reactor fuel does not reduce the risk of the element's weaponization, the disappearance of nerve gas precursors into benign chemical factories can equally signify innocence. Or cunning.

Dual use chemicals have innocent uses by definition, but profitable use is another matter. That's why cheaper or better single use chemicals dominate the chemical economy. The suave Iraqi CBW general who claims its weapons exist no more can't recall just why all those dual use chemicals were acquired or what became of them. The burning question of the day is less where they are, than why Iraq sometimes bought both cheap and excellent single use compounds and mediocre and expensive ones as well?

A germ of truth is the best bodyguard a big lie can have.

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by StupidMoniker
They are supposed to reflect the desires of the people insofar as the people determine who the representatives are and who gets to stay a representative once they leave office. They were never meant to poll the people on every issue and do what the results say (ie the Clinton approach). We elect leaders, ostensibly, to do what THEY think is in the best interest of their constituency. In actuality, our leaders our elected for much sadder reasons and their function is to get reelected. If you think that all the congressmen authorized the president to invade Iraq only based on WMD, then 1) they should all be railing against the President now (are they?) and 2) you are assuming you know what hundreds of very different people were thinking (I could not tell you why various congresspeople voted for war). Is it possible that the (republican majority) congress thought about a lot of the same issues that have been raised on this board when making a decision on going to war? We will see how much the average American really opposes the war when elections roll around. I do not predict huge turnover in congress.

The answer to what hundreds of very different people were thinking is in your own post: "Our leaders are elected for much sadder reasons and their function is to get reelected." Bush's people not only manipulated evidence -- they manipulated the debate by demonizing dissent, as they've done all along.

I don't predict a huge turnover in Congress either, but the war won't be the only or even probably the top issue in the next elections. Look for the turnover at the White House.

[Deuce Rings]

Originally posted by MacBeth
Without getting into debating your reasoning for why you think the war is justified, let me say this, and this goes for all those who'd rather say why they approve of removing Saddam than answer the questions:

The point isn't whether you or I or George W. Bush thinks that there are good reasons for the war. The point is, in a representative government, it isn't up to you, or I, or Dubya, it's up to the people as a whole. In order to make the decision of whether or not we should go to war, the people as a whole need the government to put the facts before them, without bias, manipulation, or outright lies, and based on those facts make a decision. In this case the argument presented was about WMD ( if you disagree, answer the questions), and other issues, such as 9-11 and Saddam's brutal rule were offered as additional benefits. The facts presented to the people, to Congress, and indeed to our allies when we sought their help were, at best, errors made as a result of a biased means of gathering them. That is the issue...not whether, after the fact, people ( most of whom support Bush pro facto, or thin the US should be more aggressive in general) think that reasons other than those presented to the people are sufficient. They weren't sufficient to the majority at the time the decision was being made, period.


We say that tyranny is wrong. We say we want to bring democracy to the middle east in order to stabalize the region. How can we do this when our own government skipped an important step in the process of responsible government? Once those in power decide for the rest of us, whether it's with a gun or a lie, we are no different in principle from the tyranny we oppose, only in the particulars of practice.

I don't think the American people are qualified to make decisions on foreign issues. Democracy works against the U.S. in a situation like the war on terror and I think the president is doing what's best for the United States whether constituents like yourself want to support him or not.

As for you saying the administration needed to tell you everything before going to war, I ask you what he should have said if I'm right about his real reasons for going to war? Maybe something like this:

"My fellow Americans, we were attacked on 9/11/01 by a people who represent a large minority in the middle east. This large minority has developed an intolerant hatred of the western way of life through years of propaganda put before them at their local mosques and in their local newspapers. That was fine before 9/11, but now there twisted way of thinking has lead them to invade our country, targeting our government's most prominent buildings in the White House, the Capitol, and the Pentagon. While these people are not lead by any known government in the world, we can simply no longer sit back and allow these factions to run wild and free. Even if we killed every single one of them, more would be grown in their place by the strict religious communities that are a fertile ground for producing such people. I therefore propose that we try and change their society so that they see things with a more modern, understanding view. Since the governments of the middle east seem unwilling to deal with the problem themselves, we aim to change their values by pushing western ideas on their culture. I propose that we invade Iraq and try to turn it into a democratic example for the middle east. With the help of our great soldiers and the American people, we'll have them singing "God Bless America" soon."

I mean really, how the hell is the president of the United States supposed to take that case to the world and the people. I think the president was in a Catch 22. He knew we could not allow middle eastern terrorist groups to continue to grow and regrow more anti-western sentiment in the middle east. He knew the governments of the middle east didn't want to address the problem as doing so would alienate large factions of their societies (and some governments flat out supported the terrorism). He knew sitting back and waiting for the next attack on US soil was not an option. Changing the society was his only option and such a bold idea would be torn apart by the American media which isn't strong enough to make a tough decision like this. So he went with the WMD argument, also a reason to invade Iraq, but not the primary one.

[glynch]

Good question, Macbeth. Question No. 8. Mr. Bush your own 911 report, which you suppressed until after the Iraq War, showed that if any country was responsible for 911, it was the Saudis and not Iraq. Yet you decided to continually state outright and or imply that Iraq was behind 911. How do you justify creating this false impression for the American people and employing it as a reason for the war against Iraq?

[Deuce Rings]

Originally posted by glynch
Good question, Macbeth. Question No. 8. Mr. Bush your own 911 report, which you suppressed until after the Iraq War, showed that if any country was responsible for 911, it was the Saudis and not Iraq. Yet you decided to continually state outright and or imply that Iraq was behind 911. How do you justify creating this false impression for the American people and employing it as a reason for the war against Iraq?

See my post just above yours.

[SaFe]

Actually Macbeth, my whole point was the possibility that Pearl Harbor might have been a lie. We aren't 100% sure that Bush lied about WMD, just like we aren't 100% sure that FDR didn't already know the Pearl Harbor attack was coming and just chose to ignore it. But nevertheless, both are possible.

Your views on how democracy works is definitely accurate in theory, but it is simply too hard to accomplish in reality. Hypothetically, lets say our government decide that they needed to invade Iraq because it is the strategic first step to neutralizing terrorist in the Middle east (which may or maynot be true). Do you think it is possible to lay out all the future military plans and strategies to the public to try an convince them this is the logical first step? As the people, you have to have some faith in the representatives you elect to make the correct decision when the time comes.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by Dark Rhino
Regarding question six:

If, as stated, the war was about the imminent threat of Iraqi WMD, including 'reconstituted nukes', and/or 'nuclear weapons programs weeks away from yielding active weapons', and 'hundreds of thousands of gallons of chemical gas'...at what point in the process of non-discovery will war supporters admit that the war was not justified as advertised?

perhaps this article pulled from the TCS: Defense website might shed some light on the subject.



Well if they know that the chem weapons and mobil labs can disappear into traffic jams, how were they so sure on MArch 30th where they were? That was when Donald Rumsfeld claimed that he knew where the WMD were and that they had been distributed near Tikrit and outside of the capitol. He even pointed to the positioins on the map.

The article also talks about dual uses for chemical agents. That's not what the administration said that the Iraqis had. They were talking about a weapons program, and weapons grade materials with actual Weapons of Mass destruction, not some chemicals that would recquire a 'harmful if swallowed' label.

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by Deuce Rings
See my post just above yours.

It adds nothing to the debate except to say that, because of 9/11, our government can and should do whatever it wants, attacking any nation it wants, regardless of the fact that there is ZERO evidence of their involvement in 9/11 or future terrorism and regardless of the fact that such action might (and did) erode the unprecedented good will we received from civilized countries around the globe after 9/11.

You and Bush know all, the rest of us know nothing. We get it. You say it ten times a day on this board, ignoring any meaningful debate on war powers and the role of democracy in making life and death decisions. Not to mention justifying and and all lies the government might tell us in order to do whatever they want, killing civilians and putting young Americans in harm's way because, you know, 9/11. And you guys say you support the troops.

Why don't we just create a sticky thread that says Deuce Rings lived in the Middle East and everyone else is ignorant. In the face of that never question the government and refer any questions you might have to Deuce Rings so he can tell you that he lived in the Middle East and everyone else is ignorant.

[Deuce Rings]

Originally posted by Batman Jones
It adds nothing to the debate except to say that, because of 9/11, our government can and should do whatever it wants, attacking any nation it wants, regardless of the fact that there is ZERO evidence of their involvement in 9/11 or future terrorism and regardless of the fact that such action might (and did) erode the unprecedented good will we received from civilized countries around the globe after 9/11.

You and Bush know all, the rest of us know nothing. We get it. You say it ten times a day on this board, ignoring any meaningful debate on war powers and the role of democracy in making life and death decisions. Not to mention justifying and and all lies the government might tell us in order to do whatever they want, killing civilians and putting young Americans in harm's way because, you know, 9/11. And you guys say you support the troops.

Why don't we just create a sticky thread that says Deuce Rings lived in the Middle East and everyone else is ignorant. In the face of that never question the government and refer any questions you might have to Deuce Rings so he can tell you that he lived in the Middle East and everyone else is ignorant.

This is a completely ignorant post from someone who is pissed off that I don't agree with their incorrect version of reality. Look jackass, I think you know that half of what you said in that post was jsut you spouting off. I'm simply telling people like you the way it is in the middle east and that, while there are things to question surrounding the Bush administration, their foreign policy is not one of them. Continue to be ignorant if you please.

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by Deuce Rings
I'm simply telling people like you the way it is in the middle east and that, while there are things to question surrounding the Bush administration, their foreign policy is not one of them. Continue to be ignorant if you please.

Thank you again for your superior wisdom. There are many reasons to criticize Bush, yes, and foreign policy is chief among them. Continue to be ignorant? Hilarious. You, too. I'll go back to ignoring you now.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by Deuce Rings
This is a completely ignorant post from someone who is pissed off that I don't agree with their incorrect version of reality. Look jackass, I think you know that half of what you said in that post was jsut you spouting off. I'm simply telling people like you the way it is in the middle east and that, while there are things to question surrounding the Bush administration, their foreign policy is not one of them. Continue to be ignorant if you please.

What you are telling people, is your vision and experience of the way it is in the middle east. Other people who live in the middle east or have lived in the middle east have different experiences and opinions than you. It happens. I will listen to your opinion and give it some weight because you have lived there.

But for you to claim that your lone experience of the way things are in the middle east is the way it actually is, and everyone else from the middle east who disagrees with you is wrong, then you lose credit.

What I don't think you realize is that you experienced in the middle east isn't necessarily the one and only correct idea of things that go on in the region. Others who've lived there or do live there have a differing opinions. I'm not saying they know everything about it either. But they have experiences and you have experiences. Everyone can have different experiences and opinions of the same region. They may all be true(believe it or not places and people have many different facets. It's usually not all one way or all the other.) They may all only be partially true, or whatever. But one person's opinion is not the be all to end all of the way things are in the mid east.

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
But one person's opinion is not the be all to end all of the way things are in the mid east.

FranchiseBlade, with all due respect, Deuce Rings has already told you it is. You're a nice guy, but your leaders and the media don't tell you how things are in the ME so you're not qualified to comment on it. Just thank DR for clearing it up and move on down the line.

[MacBeth]

I just wanted to take a moment to point out what is probably obvious to anyone reading this thread with a shred of objectivity...


As anticipated in my opening post, the questions, uncomfortable as they are to digest for those who don't want to deal with the issue of the administration misleading the government into war, have largely been ducked. Despite the fact that this thread has been at or near the top of this forum for a few days now, most of the posters who popped in regularly to inform us about each and every 'discovery' of WMD's on a daily basis, complete with mocking asides, have not been heard from. Of those posters who were here with minute by minute updates on our winning the war with...Iraq...and somehow crowing over this as justification for the war, nary a peep. Of those pro war folks who have bothered to even answer ( 9), only 2 ( giddy and robbie) had the courage to even try and respond to the questions.

Unless you think that the questions themselves are dishonest ( have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no?) which I intentionally avoided, and have yet to gear anyone accuse, what is the problem with addressing them face on? We have had several threads where pro-war folks have and can address why they feel that the war is ok whether Bush mislead us or not...we have had several threads where they could and did voice their opinion that the US needs to start kicking ass and taking names. If you want to do that subsequent to dealing with the issue of this thread, namely was the war justified as advertised, and were we mislead, fine. But to duck that issue in a thread specifically about it, and preach Pax Americana is gutless, IMO.

[Batman Jones]

Yes, MacBeth, it is entirely gutless, but they're getting their orders from the top. Bush's recent comments were nothing but the same -- We're winning the war on terror, this is about terror, we're safer from terror... Repeat incessantly that Saddam was a bad man and maybe all these pesky questions will go away. It might work, but it is a gutless strategy. Props to giddyup and rob for attempting to answer these difficult questions. Shame on the rest of you for disappearing as soon as your 'victory' parade was pre-empted, and appearing here only to dodge these important questions.

[Dark Rhino]

Question Two: If the liberation of the Iraqi people was in itself sufficient justification for the war, why were the American people and the world at large not told this before the war? In fact, why were we told the reverse, as Wolfowitz stated in his interview with Vanity Fair "... there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two...The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. ?

It's all about oil.
Not really, but so what? Are we supposed to ignore the fact that our whole economy, and therefore our national security, depends upon imported oil? Why is it even theoretically inappropriate to fight in order to ensure the continued delivery of a substance so essential to our survival and independence? Meanwhile, Saddam's psychotic and despotic regime would represent a profound danger to the world even if he controlled no oil assets whatever. The United States imports almost none of its petroleum from Iraq, but our European "allies" (the French, in particular) get a great deal of their energy from that country – and therefore ardently opposed the idea of waging war. On this issue, it's the appeasers – not the hard-liners – who are "all about oil."

[Dark Rhino]

Question Seven: If the declared war on terrorism was the priority it was said to be after 9-11, when and why did the focus shift to war with Iraq to the point where we diverted funding, intelligence resources, and personel away from pursuing Al Queada and into Iraq, especially given that our own intel said that Iraq was largely irrelevent to the war on terror?

There is no connection between Islamic terrorists and the Saddam Hussein regime. This statement represents one of the few examples of anti-war activists disagreeing with the official line of the Iraqi government. That line emphasizes the proud support of the heroic and revolutionary Iraqi people for Islamic fighters everywhere, including the holy warriors of al-Qaida. Meanwhile, the al-Qaida crew similarly expresses its solidarity with Saddam – as they did in their Internet statement (widely validated by intelligence agencies in the West) claiming credit for the recent Kenya attacks, and linking future assaults to potential war against their friends, the Iraqis. If Iraq expresses solidarity with al-Qaida, and al-Qaida expresses solidarity with Iraq, peaceniks face a difficult challenge in arguing that they represent utterly disconnected phenomena.

All the talk of war against Iraq has caused us to lose focus on the war against terrorism. Umm, even if the president of the United States happens to focus on Iraq in his speeches, that doesn't mean that the several hundred thousand Americans who have been dedicated since Sept. 11 to rooting out Islamic terror suddenly gave up or pulled back on their efforts. If our military and counter-terrorist capabilities don't allow us to simultaneously combat a gang of murderous thugs like al-Qaida and a fourth-rate military power like Iraq, then we have been even more tragically weakened by eight years of Clinton defense cuts than even the gloomiest conservatives assumed.

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by Dark Rhino
It's all about oil.
Not really, but so what? Are we supposed to ignore the fact that our whole economy, and therefore our national security, depends upon imported oil? Why is it even theoretically inappropriate to fight in order to ensure the continued delivery of a substance so essential to our survival and independence? Meanwhile, Saddam's psychotic and despotic regime would represent a profound danger to the world even if he controlled no oil assets whatever. The United States imports almost none of its petroleum from Iraq, but our European "allies" (the French, in particular) get a great deal of their energy from that country – and therefore ardently opposed the idea of waging war. On this issue, it's the appeasers – not the hard-liners – who are "all about oil."


1) How shall I put this....Hmmm...Oh, wait, I know...Because it's not ours. Taking it merely because we can is thieving, stealing, imperialism, whatever you want to call it.

2) On this issue, it's the appeasers – not the hard-liners – who are "all about oil."

Clearly you don't understand what appeasement was, if you are attempting to make an historical reference to WWII. That aside, please explain how the bulk of the world's population was influenced by the commercial aspirations of a couple of Russian and French corporations. Both of their populations stood firmly against the war in and of themselves, and the governments reflected their population, as they are supposed to. In fact, the only nations whose leaders went against the expressed desires of their population were those among the 'willing.' And, if you want ulterior motives, many of those nations recieved monetary compensation for their support. Standing up for freedom and democracy indeed.

[Dark Rhino]

*Sigh* Regarding this thread, where's Trader Jorge when his wit and wisdom are really needed?

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by Dark Rhino
There is no connection between Islamic terrorists and the Saddam Hussein regime. This statement represents one of the few examples of anti-war activists disagreeing with the official line of the Iraqi government. That line emphasizes the proud support of the heroic and revolutionary Iraqi people for Islamic fighters everywhere, including the holy warriors of al-Qaida. Meanwhile, the al-Qaida crew similarly expresses its solidarity with Saddam – as they did in their Internet statement (widely validated by intelligence agencies in the West) claiming credit for the recent Kenya attacks, and linking future assaults to potential war against their friends, the Iraqis. If Iraq expresses solidarity with al-Qaida, and al-Qaida expresses solidarity with Iraq, peaceniks face a difficult challenge in arguing that they represent utterly disconnected phenomena.

All the talk of war against Iraq has caused us to lose focus on the war against terrorism. Umm, even if the president of the United States happens to focus on Iraq in his speeches, that doesn't mean that the several hundred thousand Americans who have been dedicated since Sept. 11 to rooting out Islamic terror suddenly gave up or pulled back on their efforts. If our military and counter-terrorist capabilities don't allow us to simultaneously combat a gang of murderous thugs like al-Qaida and a fourth-rate military power like Iraq, then we have been even more tragically weakened by eight years of Clinton defense cuts than even the gloomiest conservatives assumed.


"There is no connection between Islamic terrorists and the Saddam Hussein regime. This statement represents one of the few examples of anti-war activists disagreeing with the official line of the Iraqi government."

Pssst...the anti-war = pro-Saddam routine is passe, even for pro-war types, hadn't you heard? Save this kind of crap for the playground.


"That line emphasizes the proud support of the heroic and revolutionary Iraqi people for Islamic fighters everywhere, including the holy warriors of al-Qaida. Meanwhile, the al-Qaida crew similarly expresses its solidarity with Saddam – as they did in their Internet statement (widely validated by intelligence agencies in the West) claiming credit for the recent Kenya attacks, and linking future assaults to potential war against their friends, the Iraqis. If Iraq expresses solidarity with al-Qaida, and al-Qaida expresses solidarity with Iraq, peaceniks face a difficult challenge in arguing that they represent utterly disconnected phenomena."


Oh come now, this is silly, Intelligence sources have confirmed...as in fact the NIE predicted, that our invasion of Iraq would make bedfellows out of previously incompatible partners, and this is what has happened. To try and revise history to the point that the war is justified because it fights against what it created is an interesting bit of mental gymnastics.


"All the talk of war against Iraq has caused us to lose focus on the war against terrorism. Umm, even if the president of the United States happens to focus on Iraq in his speeches, that doesn't mean that the several hundred thousand Americans who have been dedicated since Sept. 11 to rooting out Islamic terror suddenly gave up or pulled back on their efforts."

This is not supposition, this is acknowledged fact. We have, quite simply, pulled several intelligence assests and redirected funding out of the war on terrorism and into the war on Iraq. I don't know how else to explain this.


" If our military and counter-terrorist capabilities don't allow us to simultaneously combat a gang of murderous thugs like al-Qaida and a fourth-rate military power like Iraq, then we have been even more tragically weakened by eight years of Clinton defense cuts than even the gloomiest conservatives assumed. "

Now this I like...Make the fact that we are fighting an unecessary and unjustified war not the fault of the blokes who decided to do so, and used whatever means was necessary to do so, but on the fellow who came before them. Cute. If you're trying to rile up an assumed CLinton support from the opposition, you're out of luck here, as I thought he should have been booted out of office, but on it's own this is about as weak an argument as I've heard in a while.

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by Dark Rhino
*Sigh* Regarding this thread, where's Trader Jorge when his wit and wisdom are really needed?


T_J is your beacon of hope on wit and wisdom? Seriously? But I agree with the underlying question: where is he? Or treeman? Or johnheath? Or DD? Or...well, you get the idea...

[Dark Rhino]

He who adds to the truth takes away from it; bearing that in mind...

Liberals also have to pretend that the only justification for war given by the Bush administration was that Iraq was knee-deep in nukes, anthrax, biological weapons and chemical weapons – so much so, that even Hans Blix couldn't help but notice them.

But that wasn't the Bush administration's position.

Rather, it was that there were lots of reasons to get rid of Saddam Hussein and none to keep him. When President Bush gave the Hussein regime 48 hours' notice to quit Iraq, he said: "(A)ll the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end." He said there would be "no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near."

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by Dark Rhino
He who adds to the truth takes away from it; bearing that in mind...

Liberals also have to pretend that the only justification for war given by the Bush administration was that Iraq was knee-deep in nukes, anthrax, biological weapons and chemical weapons – so much so, that even Hans Blix couldn't help but notice them.

But that wasn't the Bush administration's position.

Rather, it was that there were lots of reasons to get rid of Saddam Hussein and none to keep him. When President Bush gave the Hussein regime 48 hours' notice to quit Iraq, he said: "(A)ll the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end." He said there would be "no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near."

He said that there would be added benefits...not the same as cause. Just like there would be benefits were we to invade Canada, or Israel, or France, or Syria, or Egypt, or Columbia, or Mexico, or Liberia, or Spain, or Japan, or any number of nations...different nations, different benefits...but the reason for war was WMD. Try answering Question number one. Or Wolfowitz's quote in number Two. Unless you suppose Wolfowitz to be an anti-war liberal.

[Dark Rhino]

Well, yes...T_J's a pretty kool kat. You must admit he has a penchant for reasoning order out of chaos--most of the time.

[Dark Rhino]

He said that there would be added benefits...not the same as cause.

Perhaps we'll just chalk it up to another one of those famous 'Bushisms', eh?

Seriously, I would still argue that with the successful invasion of Iraq, we eliminated one of the world's major terror-sponsoring regimes. Need I reiterate that we also liberated 26 million people from a brutal tyranny that shredded human beings alive, systematically raped and tortured and killed its own people in numbers greater than any external enemy could.

We ought to be collectively celebrating those achievements. Instead, there are some Americans, for political reasons, who would prefer to run down our victory and what it means to the security of the world and the freedom of the Iraqi people.

Nevertheless, have confidence that these people will be proven wrong. We will find the weapons of mass destruction. Significant evidence of weapons programs has already been discovered. More will come. Let not your heart be troubled.

[Dark Rhino]

For the record, of course, I don't believe President Bush lied, but if I did – unlike Clinton's diehard enablers – I would not be defending him.

It boils down to this: Whom do you trust, and who truly has the nation's best interests at heart?

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by Dark Rhino
Perhaps we'll just chalk it up to another one of those famous 'Bushisms', eh?

Seriously, I would still argue that with the successful invasion of Iraq, we eliminated one of the world's major terror-sponsoring regimes. Need I reiterate that we also liberated 26 million people from a brutal tyranny that shredded human beings alive, systematically raped and tortured and killed its own people in numbers greater than any external enemy could.

We ought to be collectively celebrating those achievements. Instead, there are some Americans, for political reasons, who would prefer to run down our victory and what it means to the security of the world and the freedom of the Iraqi people.

Nevertheless, have confidence that these people will be proven wrong. We will find the weapons of mass destruction. Significant evidence of weapons programs has already been discovered. More will come. Let not your heart be troubled.



"Seriously, I would still argue that with the successful invasion of Iraq, we eliminated one of the world's major terror-sponsoring regimes. Need I reiterate that we also liberated 26 million people from a brutal tyranny that shredded human beings alive, systematically raped and tortured and killed its own people in numbers greater than any external enemy could. "

First of all, and for the umpteenth time, I don't think any anti-war people are saying that there is nothing at all positive about removing Sadaam from pwer. Pro-war people keep trying to make that connection, but it's entirely of their own fabrication. What anti-war folks are saying is some or all of the following: It wasn't our decision to make, it wasn't worth the cost if that cost included circumventing our own system, the govt. manipulating the people, alienating our allies, abandoning our position on legitimate warfare, lessening our effort to combat terrorism, and destroying the unprecedented swel of international support for the US following 9-11, putting us in a position of having to commit troops from now on in every instance of humanitarian need or look like we need ulterior motives to do so, and making it highly unlikely that the world at large will trust us at all in the foreseeable future.



" We ought to be collectively celebrating those achievements. Instead, there are some Americans, for political reasons, who would prefer to run down our victory and what it means to the security of the world and the freedom of the Iraqi people. "

I am getting tired and insulted at having to repeatedly dismiss this argument. I supported Bush pre-war...what is my ulterior political motivation for objecting it supposed to be?


" Nevertheless, have confidence that these people will be proven wrong. We will find the weapons of mass destruction. Significant evidence of weapons programs has already been discovered. More will come. Let not your heart be troubled."

Why should I? What significant evidence? And the point is that our pre-war statements have pretty much already been disproved; if there were any WMDs, they certainly weren't significant, and weren't in a position to pose an imminent threat.

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by Dark Rhino
For the record, of course, I don't believe President Bush lied, but if I did – unlike Clinton's diehard enablers – I would not be defending him.

It boils down to this: Whom do you trust, and who truly has the nation's best interests at heart?


"For the record, of course, I don't believe President Bush lied, but if I did – unlike Clinton's diehard enablers – I would not be defending him. "

No, you, like many of Clinton's apologists, merely ignore the facts and concentrate on other aspects...Clinton supporters concentrated on whether or not his sex life was really our concern,as opposed to the crime of perjury by the highest official in the land, and Bush supporters concentrate on whether Saddam was a bad man rather than whether our government mislead us and tried (with less success) to mislead the world into war.


"It boils down to this: Whom do you trust, and who truly has the nation's best interests at heart? "

I don't know if you have been paying attention to another thread in here...on Marx's quote about religion, but I have said that I am not among those who dismiss the validity of faith. That said, I am not ready to extend that ideal to the realm of worldy actions by secular leaders, and that is what you are asking for here. It's an interesting though, we could extend it to the courts...

" Your honor, ladies and gentleman of the jury...we could sit here and waste all of our time arguing about facts, going over evidence, reviewing conlficting statements, and generally being stubbornly logical about the whole affair, or we could just ask ourselves one simple question: Who would you rather beleive, the accused criminal over there, or your own government? CASE CLOSED."

[glynch]

Batman, I think Deuce made it clear from just about his first post that he approves if Bush lied or said whatever needed about such issues as wmd or Iraq- Al Qaeda ties so that we could occupy Iraq to pressure the whole Arab World. All seven questions are irrelevant semantics to him.

He believes that so fervently because when he was younger, he talked to some religious Saudis, who hate the US and say they want the whole world to be Muslim. Apparently they learned this in a Mosque. This seems to have been very personally traumatic to him.

To him this danger of these Saudis and other Arabs is on par with WW II. and Hitler. To his way of thinking you don't hesitate to lie to the ignorant majority of Americans, if needed, to save the country from this immediate Hitlerian danger. An operation like the Phoenix Program in Vietnam in which the US literally asassinated 1000's of supposed Viet cOng sympathizers would probably be ok for Deuce if directed toward this type of Arabs.

Unfortunately all indications are that despite their covering pr that Deuce's position regarding the necessity of the truth and the informed will of the American people is closer to the positons of Bush, Rumsfeld and the gang than is commonly portrayed.

With the recent statements of Wolfowitz first that the wmd thing was just a "bureauratic convenience" and recently that he never saw any clear link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, we might find that the Bush administration is testing to see if there are enough ditto heads out there to come clean and just say we just said it to protect you all even if it wasn't really true.

The slow water torture of having mistatement after mistatement of Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney et al. belatedly nailed down by the mainstream media has to be grating on them.

[giddyup]

Does anybody offer an ounce of support to my observation that the Democrats have succeeded in elaborating this WMD issue as the primary justification for this war.

That was not really Bush's message in the SOTU2003. Somehow the topic of WMDs became the end-all and be-all of this regime change, whereas in January 2003 it was a more well-rounded intent. I think the Dems moved the line an inch a day and effectively may have entrapped this administration.

[Batman Jones]

giddyup, no offense, but you keep citing the SOTU against all other evidence to prove that WMD's were not the primary justification for war, and that just isn't true.

MacBeth makes it very clear when he reminds us that Bush offered to call off the war if WMD's were dealt with to his liking. That is proof positive (as if we even needed it, given the tenor of every single speech or official communication out of the White House regarding the reasons for war) that they were the primary motivation for war. You can count words in the SOTU all you like to try and prove otherwise, but Bush did not say if Saddam started treating his people better we would call off the war -- there are many bad dictators in the world and liberation, in itself, is not a US interest. You accuse the Democrats of spin, but you are the one spinning when you say that since Bush talked more about Saddam's crimes against his people in one speech, those crimes were the primary motivator for war. They weren't and even Bush (even now) would not try to make the case that they were.

Bush repeatedly made the case for a clear, present danger from Iraq. He did it in several ways, accusing them of an active nuclear program as well as an active WMD program and also accusing them of links to terrorists, including Al Qaeda. To suggest that dealing with this alleged threat was a mere bonus, while liberation was the primary motivator is revisionist history at its finest. You also like to cite the colorful brand name of the operation (Iraqi Freedom or Liberation or whatever) as proof this was our main motivation, but no person involved (including the administration, the UN or any of the media covering this) would agree with you. The case Bush made to Congress, the American people and the UN relied primarily on the clear and present danger Saddam allegedly posed to the United States and its allies. Liberation was the bonus, not vice versa.

As a side note, I would have supported WWII simply on humanitarian grounds and I probably would have supported regime change in Iraq on the same grounds. The American people were not asked to support either war on those grounds -- in both cases, removing a heinous dictator was a bonus. America is not in the liberation business except where our interests are directly threatened. And Bush was very clear in his position on this during the presidential election when he said we were not and should not be the world's police and that we ought to employ a more 'humble' approach to foreign affairs than Clinton did in Bosnia or Somalia. You can argue that many things have changed since 9/11, but none of them have to do with the US position regarding liberation or democratization of sovereign nations where there is no clear threat to our interests.

[Batman Jones]

One final thing on the SOTU:

While I'd been convinced for some time of Saddam's brutality toward his people, what shook me in Bush's speech was his list of weapons and the damage they could do. Regardless of the number of words spent on WMD's versus Saddam's brutality, I would be amazed if anyone walked away from that speech thinking that the WMD stuff wasn't the strongest stuff in the speech. I was adamantly opposed to the war, on the grounds that I did not believe Iraq was an imminent threat, but I said all along (on this board and elsewhere) that if an imminent threat or a connection to 9/11 could be proved I would be right behind the war. The SOTU section on WMD's scared the hell out of me (and, I'd venture, many other Americans) and it was after that speech that the tide turned with regard to American support for the war.

Since when did we not know all that stuff about the oppression of the Iraqi people? We've known it since before the first Gulf War. That was not the fresh or most impactful section of the speech. It was gravy -- regardless of the word count. People didn't change their minds re: support for the war because they were reminded of things they already knew. They changed their minds because they got the crap scared out of them. I didn't change my mind, because I didn't believe the hype. More and more, it looks like I was right not to.

[Dark Rhino]

People didn't change their minds re: support for the war because they were reminded of things they already knew. They changed their minds because they got the crap scared out of them. I didn't change my mind, because I didn't believe the hype. More and more, it looks like I was right not to.

Speaking for myself, what really spooked me was how close Saddam came to building a nuclear bomb during the first Persian Gulf War and how badly our intel underestimated him.

[giddyup]

BJ: My take on all this is vastly different from yours: after 9/11, we were just simply fed up. No more. War on Terrorism. Start with your most easily identifiable target: The Taliban. Then make a move toward stabilizing the Middle East-- democratize Iraq.

Bush's offer to Saddam was nothing more than the highest demand of the UN: show us your WMDs and lets dispose of them or fully account for them. It was a reiteration of a 10 year-old demand. WMDs (primarily biological or chemical) were the focus but that is all.

My point is that Bush did not make nuclear WMDs the central focus of the SOTU, yet that is all people want to talk about... and people somehow seem to (erroneously) remember that speech for that quality... which barely exists. How did that happen?

Your bent on making this a personal matter for Bush ("Bush offered to call off the war if WMD's were dealt with to his liking") rather than falling in line with the UN Resolution which the UN had ineffectively enforced for a decade reveals your agenda.

Your mind is no doubt prodigous but I doubt you can recall the "the tenor of every single speech or official communication out of the White House regarding the reasons for war."

My point, again, with rallying to the SOTU is that this is where it started. Yes, the argument changed... but how and why?

You write: "You accuse the Democrats of spin, but you are the one spinning when you say that since Bush talked more about Saddam's crimes against his people in one speech, those crimes were the primary motivator for war. They weren't and even Bush (even now) would not try to make the case that they were."

Who's spinning? I counted the words and read at the speech. Of course, he wouldn't backtrack now because the Dems have succeeded in painting him into a corner. The focus of the conversation has been shifted. In the speech, he never identifies the US as imminently threatened by Saddams' nuclear WMD program. The scenario he talks about is what chem/bio agent might be in the carry-on luggage of the next terrorist.

You wrote: "Since when did we not know all that stuff about the oppression of the Iraqi people?"

Aren't you one of the ones who is always reminding us about how quickly the American people forget? How little they care about Iraqis or Afghanis et al?

[giddyup]

The SOTU2003 when it picks up with Saddam Hussein:

"Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction.

For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country.

Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons: not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations and for the opinion of the world.

The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming.

<B>It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.</b>

The <B>United Nations concluded</B> in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of <B>anthrax</B>; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The <B>United Nations concluded</B> that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of <B>botulinum</B> toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of <B>sarin, mustard and VX</B> nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. <B>He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.</B>

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

<b>The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. </b>

<B>|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||The Words so Controversial |||||||||||||

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| End ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||</b>

Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.

Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

<B>The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving.</B>

From intelligence sources, we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work <b>hiding</b> documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, <b>sanitizing</b> inspection sites and <B>monitoring</b> the inspectors themselves.

Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to <B>intimidate</B> witnesses. Iraq is <B>blocking</B> U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations.

Iraqi intelligence officers are <B>posing</b> as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been <b>coached</b> by Iraqi officials on what to say.

Intelligence sources indicate that <b>Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families</b>.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why?

The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to <b>dominate, intimidate or attack</b>.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region.

And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein <b>aids and protects terrorists</b>, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, <b>he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.</b>

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.

Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. <B>It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.</b>

We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

<B>||||||||||||||||||||||| Is this where he says the threat is imminent?! |||||||||||||||||||

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| end ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||</b>

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured.

Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.

If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.

<b>And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country.

And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country and our friends and our allies. </b>

The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: <b>If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. </b>

Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American armed forces. Many of you are assembling in or near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay ahead.

In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America and America believes in you.

Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a president can make. The technologies of war have changed. The risks and suffering of war have not.

For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow.

This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost, and we dread the days of mourning that always come.

We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all.

If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means, sparing, in every way we can, the innocent.

And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military, and we will prevail.

And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies and freedom.

Many challenges, abroad and at home, have arrived in a single season. In two years, America has gone from a sense of invulnerability to an awareness of peril, from bitter division in small matters to calm unity in great causes.

And we go forward with confidence, because this call of history has come to the right country.

Americans are a resolute people, who have risen to every test of our time. Adversity has revealed the character of our country, to the world, and to ourselves.

<b>America is a strong nation and honorable in the use of our strength. We exercise power without conquest, and we sacrifice for the liberty of strangers.

Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to humanity.</b>

We Americans have faith in ourselves, but not in ourselves alone. We do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving god behind all of life and all of history.

May he guide us now, and may God continue to bless the United States of America.

Thank you.

[glynch]

I was thinking about this issue. The key is how many people really care about these 7 question issues and the deceptions of Bush. Deuce and Giddyup don't for very similar reasons.

My take on all this is vastly different from yours: after 9/11, we were just simply fed up. No more. War on Terrorism. Start with your most easily identifiable target: The Taliban. Then make a move toward stabilizing the Middle East-- democratize Iraq.
Giddyup

This is as close as Giddyup comes to saying "screw the 7 question type issues", like Deuce.

Now Giddyup is saying it wasn't mainly wmd, which is largely the Bush line now. It is unfair spin to say it was.

It is a good tactic to try to focus on the SOTU only if trying to make the case which Giddyup does at times that it was a good deal about Iraqi Liberation. As I recall the Iraqi Liberation bit was the last of several reason employed. I think it was used in a last gasp to try to convince the Europeans and the doubters at home and to try to put a positve spin on things, since they were going to start the war with or against international law.

Giddup is close to the current Bush spin. It is all part of the war on terror (who can be against that). A few days ago when Bush said he was saddened by the loss of some additional troops and praised their sacrifice because they "are protecting the United States", he was getting into a more and more general theme even less specific than "war on terror". No more talking of wmd or Iraq-Al Qaeda links, which are dangerous to spin since these are more specific and could, though it is hard to prove a negative, be pretty much disproved.

Giddyup, fortunately we don't have to rely on Batman's prodigious memory. Here is a link to the full text of most of Bush's speeches on the issue.


Bush's speeches (http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/newreply.php?s=&action=newreply&threadid=62756)

[glynch]

Here's Bush major speech on October, 2001 before the SOTU. You can clearly see that Iraqi liberationis an after thought, tacked on at the end.
*********
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thank you for that very gracious and warm Cincinnati welcome. I'm honored to be here tonight; I appreciate you all coming.

Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it?

Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action -- why be concerned now; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror. These are all issues we've discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.

First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world.

Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.

And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.

Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both. And the United States military is capable of confronting both.

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the regime has been much closer -- the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril."

Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.

Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure. Yet this is precisely what the world has tried to do since 1991. The U.N. inspections program was met with systematic deception. The Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next; they forged documents, destroyed evidence, and developed mobile weapons facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors. Eight so-called presidential palaces were declared off-limits to unfettered inspections. These sites actually encompass twelve square miles, with hundreds of structures, both above and below the ground, where sensitive materials could be hidden.
"
The world has also tried economic sanctions -- and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.

The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities -- only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist.

The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people -- and in the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times.

After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.

Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. Among those requirements: the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under U.N. supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction. To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside the country -- and these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them so they all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder. And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.

The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

Many nations are joining us in insisting that Saddam Hussein's regime be held accountable. They are committed to defending the international security that protects the lives of both our citizens and theirs. And that's why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council seriously.

And these resolutions are clear. In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism. It must cease the persecution of its civilian population. It must stop all illicit trade outside the Oil For Food program. It must release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including an American pilot, whose fate is still unknown.

By taking these steps, and by only taking these steps, the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict. Taking these steps would also change the nature of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime will make that choice. Unfortunately, at least so far, we have little reason to expect it. And that's why two administrations -- mine and President Clinton's -- have stated that regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our nation.

I hope this will not require military action, but it may. And military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures. If Saddam Hussein orders such measures, his generals would be well advised to refuse those orders. If they do not refuse, they must understand that all war criminals will be pursued and punished. If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully; we will act with the full power of the United States military; we will act with allies at our side, and we will prevail. (Applause.)

There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait -- and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence. As Americans, we want peace -- we work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein.

Failure to act would embolden other tyrants, allow terrorists access to new weapons and new resources, and make blackmail a permanent feature of world events. The United Nations would betray the purpose of its founding, and prove irrelevant to the problems of our time. And through its inaction, the United States would resign itself to a future of fear.

That is not the America I know. That is not the America I serve. We refuse to live in fear. (Applause.) This nation, in world war and in Cold War, has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history's course. Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom, and help others to find freedom of their own.

Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq. The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban. The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family.

On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.

America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.

Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors.

Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.

Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote. I'm confident they will fully consider the facts, and their duties.

The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities.

We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept it. Like other generations of Americans, we will meet the responsibility of defending human liberty against violence and aggression. By our resolve, we will give strength to others. By our courage, we will give hope to others. And by our actions, we will secure the peace, and lead the world to a better day.

[giddyup]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by glynch
[B]Here's Bush major speech on October, 2001 before the SOTU. You can clearly see that Iraqi liberationis an after thought, tacked on at the end.
*********
...

{SECOND PARAGRAPH)

Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.

....

COMMENT-- It's the Topic of the Speech. Why wouldn't you expect the message to stay on-topic?!

[giddyup]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by glynch
[B]I was thinking about this issue. The key is how many people really care about these 7 question issues and the deceptions of Bush. Deuce and Giddyup don't for very similar reasons.

This is as close as Giddyup comes to saying "screw the 7 question type issues", like Deuce.

Now Giddyup is saying it wasn't mainly wmd, which is largely the Bush line now. It is unfair spin to say it was.

<b>I think it is pretty evident that that is what GWB said not me...</b>

It is a good tactic to try to focus on the SOTU only if trying to make the case which Giddyup does at times that it was a good deal about Iraqi Liberation. As I recall the Iraqi Liberation bit was the last of several reason employed. I think it was used in a last gasp to try to convince the Europeans and the doubters at home and to try to put a positve spin on things, since they were going to start the war with or against international law.

<b>At the UN, didn't Bush lead with the WMD issue because that was the issue that the UN was supposed to have taken care of?</b>

Giddup is close to the current Bush spin. It is all part of the war on terror (who can be against that). A few days ago when Bush said he was saddened by the loss of some additional troops and praised their sacrifice because they "are protecting the United States", he was getting into a more and more general theme even less specific than "war on terror". No more talking of wmd or Iraq-Al Qaeda links, which are dangerous to spin since these are more specific and could, though it is hard to prove a negative, be pretty much disproved.

<b>Again, hasn't that been the consistent assertion. Oh, I know the focus gets put on things in new cycles but my point is that Batman didn't even have the gist of the SOTU correct. That was the much anticipated public pronouncement about what course of action the US would take.</b>

[HayesStreet]

1. I think there's no doubt that the bunglers in the Administration have made so many mistakes (including likely lying) that one cannot really defend their actions. I had a lot of problems with this myself initially when I found myself defending Bush despite my opinion of him, before I realized it wasn't really necessary.

2. I think there is no doubt the intervention in Iraq was justified, and that we are all better off for it.

3. I would like to reverse one question though. If intervention in Iraq was really because of (insert: oil, Jr hated Saddam because he tried to kill Sr, to protect Israel) then why did they say if Iraq disarmed there would be no intervention?

[glynch]

I would like to reverse one question though. If intervention in Iraq was really because of (insert: oil, Jr hated Saddam because he tried to kill Sr, to protect Israel) then why did they say if Iraq disarmed there would be no intervention?

This is typical of the prowarriors. First Hayes has the bland the world is better off rationale, then it is the above quoted little question where it is all back to wmd and immediate threat.

To answer your question. Bush's statement was rhetorical. Everyone knew they were going to invade anyway. Sadam said it; as hundreds of thousands of troops and billions were spent, everyone who wasn't a true believer knew it.

I think the most recent news is that the war had already started, before the official announcement, with special ops and bombing of military targets etc. when these type of statements were being made.

Count Hayes as a somewhat reluctant member of the "who cares if he lied?" camp.

[Mr. Clutch]

Originally posted by glynch


To answer your question. Bush's statement was rhetorical. Everyone knew they were going to invade anyway. Sadam said it; as hundreds of thousands of troops and billions were spent, everyone who wasn't a true believer knew it.


So what would have happened if Saddam actually did disarm? What would Bush have said? I don't expect a really reasonable response other than "he would just lie again" but realistically I don't see how he could have gone back on his statement.

[Mr. Clutch]

delete

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by HayesStreet
1. I think there's no doubt that the bunglers in the Administration have made so many mistakes (including likely lying) that one cannot really defend their actions. I had a lot of problems with this myself initially when I found myself defending Bush despite my opinion of him, before I realized it wasn't really necessary.

2. I think there is no doubt the intervention in Iraq was justified, and that we are all better off for it.

3. I would like to reverse one question though. If intervention in Iraq was really because of (insert: oil, Jr hated Saddam because he tried to kill Sr, to protect Israel) then why did they say if Iraq disarmed there would be no intervention?


1) But you are side-stepping the point: War is the most serious action a President can consider, and making the case for war the most serious process in which he can engage...and yet you are willing to overlook the fact that this President repeatedly cited WMD, it's threat to us (directly or via terrorists) as the reason we had to go to war and also the reason we could not wait for the UN inspections, the time they asked for, or to gain their approval. We not only repeatedly stated that WMD was our cause for war, but we clearly and repeatedly stated it was our cause for rushing...'we cannot wait for a smoking gun becuase it could be a mushroom cloud', et inflammatory cetera. You can't overlook what our cause was for war now that it seems unsbstantiated...and now that it seesm the body in place to prevent Saddam from being a threat, the UN, was being effective, just because you agree that there are benefots to the war. A benefit and a cause are not the same thing; in a responsible nation the cause is that which promted the action, and that was WMD, without doubt.

And even Bush couldn't have misspoken about WMD, and said that no WMD no war as many times as he did.

2) Justified to you after the fact and the reason we justified the war before hand are not the same thing. Yes there are benefots...as there would be if we invaded almost any other country. We could invade Israel by claiming that they are planning a nuclear strike against us, and then afterwards when that proves untrue point out their humanitarian record, their violation of the UN, and their role in the continuous upheavel in the Muddle East. We could invade Egytp claiming that they were about to launch a WMD strike on Israel, and after that proves untrue say that US control of the region stabalizes Israel, thereby stabalizing the region, that it gives us control of the Suez, that it helps undermine a breeding groiund for terrorists, etc. We could invade Mexico claiming that they are about to develop nukes and mean to use them against us from day one, and when that proves untrue cite their incredible poverty, authoritarian rule, the continual illegal immigration, etc. We could invade Columbia claiming that their drug warlords have bought nuclear technology and plan to use it to ensure theor pipeline, and when that proves groundless claim that the invasion was ok because we stopped the primary source of drugs, stopped the criminal drug lords from running their own state, and eliminated the humanitarian atrocities, etc. We could do this virtually anywhere...

...but to 'justify' the war you need a reason that stands the test of time and action. We said war for WMD...we said that the reasons currently in play ( repeatedly, see Wolfowitz's quote which you sidestepped with your opinion) were not sufficient, and we clearly didn't selll the war on those reasons as cause. Responsible government or not?

3) But that's the increasingly interesting aspect to this...Saddam, the Iraqis, and even our own primary source of info on Saddam all said he had effectively disarmed. Nobody, including me, believed him. The basis for our disbelief was, aside from his personal character, our intelligence reports and what we saw as unaccounted for differences in what we reported he had, what we knew he had had, and what was recorded as destroyed...

...but we have now seen how accurate our intel was in estimating Saddam's WMDs. We now know that the amounts 'missing', which the Iraqis claimed all along were merely the result of having degraded to such an extent that they were useless, or had been destroyed with inproepr records, we now know that that is quite possible, and that the US military 'loses' far more WMD materials than that each and every year.

And as time goes on, the possibility that he was telling the truth seems more and more a realistic possibility. So in response to your question, Iraq did say they'd disarmed, and as is becoming increasingly apparant, our decision to go to war, whether it be for oil, for longstanding antipathy, for political reasons, for Israel, to fullill Cheney and Wolfowitz's acknowledged grand plan from the get go, pre 9-11, our publicly acknowledged reasons for war came after the decision, not before. In order to get what they anted done they tried a few public arguments, and WMD sold whereas the others hadn't, so that was our cause...Iraq did say they disarmed, and we guffawed based on itel and went in anyway...and have found...?

[HayesStreet]

Originally posted by MacBeth
1) But you are side-stepping the point: War is the most serious action a President can consider, and making the case for war the most serious process in which he can engage...and yet you are willing to overlook the fact that this President repeatedly cited WMD, it's threat to us (directly or via terrorists) as the reason we had to go to war and also the reason we could not wait for the UN inspections, the time they asked for, or to gain their approval. We not only repeatedly stated that WMD was our cause for war, but we clearly and repeatedly stated it was our cause for rushing...'we cannot wait for a smoking gun becuase it could be a mushroom cloud', et inflammatory cetera. You can't overlook what our cause was for war now that it seems unsbstantiated...and now that it seesm the body in place to prevent Saddam from being a threat, the UN, was being effective, just because you agree that there are benefots to the war. A benefit and a cause are not the same thing; in a responsible nation the cause is that which promted the action, and that was WMD, without doubt.

And even Bush couldn't have misspoken about WMD, and said that no WMD no war as many times as he did.

Not sidestepping the point at all. I am merely stating that the intervention was justified (as in a 'just action'), not that it was justified to the public correctly. You assume that it was unjust because it was incorrectly justified beforehand, which I do not.

Originally posted by MacBeth
2) Justified to you after the fact and the reason we justified the war before hand are not the same thing. Yes there are benefots...as there would be if we invaded almost any other country. We could invade Israel by claiming that they are planning a nuclear strike against us...We could do this virtually anywhere...

Actually, we have argued over this so many times that I am suprised that you would argue I am merely justifying it 'after the fact.' I have always maintained that intervention was justified in and of itself because of Saddam's despotism and resulting genocide. It was ALSO justified by our suspicions of WMD, which you shared unless I am mistaken. That one is so far unproven does not affect the other.

Originally posted by MacBeth
As for 'doing this anywhere,' that is a little silly. As I have stated many times, in other cases/countries (like Israel or Egypt or Columbia) we still have influence other than military force to encourage change, while in Iraq we did not.

...but to 'justify' the war you need a reason that stands the test of time and action. We said war for WMD...we said that the reasons currently in play ( repeatedly, see Wolfowitz's quote which you sidestepped with your opinion) were not sufficient, and we clearly didn't selll the war on those reasons as cause. Responsible government or not?

Stopping genocide will stand the test of time. Administration bungling does not change this.

Originally posted by MacBeth
3) But that's the increasingly interesting aspect to this...Saddam, the Iraqis, and even our own primary source of info on Saddam all said he had effectively disarmed. Nobody, including me, believed him. The basis for our disbelief was, aside from his personal character, our intelligence reports and what we saw as unaccounted for differences in what we reported he had, what we knew he had had, and what was recorded as destroyed...


Uh, I think you're missing the point here. We believed Saddam had WMDs because he refused to allow unbridled inspection. Even Saddam's own people are now saying he didn't open up because he didn't want us to know for sure. It was illogical for him to play brinksmanship games when facing invasion. That was the most convincing point for me before the war. Really the point of reversing the question, however, is that it is just as telling that we committed to non-intervention if he opened up. That means it the intervention (when looking at the Administration's motivation) was not to stop genocide, but also means it was not to occupy Iraq and steal their oil, or to avenge Saddam's assassination attempt, or any of the other conspiracy theories coming out of the anti-war camp.

We may or may not be disagreeing here I guess. If your point is to castigate the administration on their justification of the war, I have no argument for that. If your point is to say the war itself was unjustified, then we are disagreeing. For you, one seems to lead to the next, and I don't think that is true.

[glynch]

So what would have happened if Saddam actually did disarm? What would Bush have said?

I don't expect a really reasonable response other than "he would just lie again"

Good premptive thrust. Hey just because you call a liar a liar doesn't make you unreasonable.

You got it Bush would have claimed he hadn't destroyed them.

Same stuff he actually claimed.

1) Un inspectors don't know squat.

2) Still buying yellow cake from Niger.

3) Demand that all Iraqi scientist leave Iraq for questioning.

4) Hide the 911 investigation results.

5) Misrepresent aluminum tubes, gliders, baloon blowing machines,

6) Hide the conclusions of Sadam's defecting son-in-law that the weapons had been destroyed. Impy he said the opposite.


Hey, Mr. Clutch, just admit Bush cooked the books and at the minimum reached a erroneous conclusion due to such dishonesty. but you don't really care.

[Mr. Clutch]

Originally posted by glynch
So what would have happened if Saddam actually did disarm? What would Bush have said?

I don't expect a really reasonable response other than "he would just lie again"

Good premptive thrust. Hey just because you call a liar a liar doesn't make you unreasonable.

You got it Bush would have claimed he hadn't destroyed them.

Same stuff he actually claimed.

1) Un inspectors don't know squat.

2) Still buying yellow cake from Niger.

3) Demand that all Iraqi scientist leave Iraq for questioning.

4) Hide the 911 investigation results.

5) Misrepresent aluminum tubes, gliders, baloon blowing machines,

6) Hide the conclusions of Sadam's defecting son-in-law that the weapons had been destroyed. Impy he said the opposite.


Hey, Mr. Clutch, just admit Bush cooked the books and at the minimum reached a erroneous conclusion due to such dishonesty. but you don't really care.

I have already stated that I think Bush probably lied on some points.

But when he states that he will not invade Iraq if Saddam destroys the weapons, then that is something that is hard to get out of. I know you can't look at this honestly and say "Maybe Bush really was tieing himself down with that statement" but I think that is the truth. Bush misrepresentations had to do with WMDs, about which we didn't find out for several months (and we still haven't found out for sure). But if Saddam had destroyed his weapons, we would have found out right away and Bush would have been politically stuck.

[twhy77]

Ok, I'm not really up on "current events", or what report said what about what... so take this for what its worth, a hopefully objective look at the war, Hey I don't even have a TV....so I won't even begin to comment on the infamous 7 questions....

I don't like to read posts by people claiming that the war was for oil, or that Bush is really just trying to colonize the world into America... because you know what, that sort of thing is just fanatical....

I remember after 9/11, Bush made a very strong statement to hold responsible those nations that were harboring or helping terrorists knowingly.... In my mind, since this statement was made, it should be a simple justification (whether you agree with it or not) for the war...

I am confused as to why we ever needed another reason beyond that...

9-11 is a reality that often gets trounced under politicians vying for power, and many have gone to the media as their outlet for voicing their opinion, and that opinion has apparently made its way in to a large majority of peoples minds. However, I'm willing to believe that a president who stands behind his decisions in lieu of incredibly dropping poll numbers, must know a little bit more about the situation than I or the common media outlet...

Thus said, I am not immediately swaying my favor behind war....

I take a look at how our nation's leaders have stood behind the decision for war, and it baffles me that Bush takes most of the heat. But, I think that is the job of the president, and that is why he has stood resolute behind his decision for war, in the face of incredibly dropping poll numbers. One has to ask the question, do you think the President and members of Congress, might be privvy to a little more intelligence than any media outlet has been able to garner? I think they have....

One must then ask the question, what if they do find WMD? I think we could agree on an answer there.

It is not smart politics to have a unhappy troops getting killed everyday if it is all for a shallow lie. I'm guessing that even if I was to be up on all the current events, I wouldn't be up on the truth, which I or you am not privy too. Bush is not dumb enough to do this right before an election, although he has shown his ability to be pretty damn dumb. I will continue to show my support for our troops and our nation's leaders that they can come through succesfully in these dark times...I think we would all benefit by doing the same until everything is found out.

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by HayesStreet
Not sidestepping the point at all. I am merely stating that the intervention was justified (as in a 'just action'), not that it was justified to the public correctly. You assume that it was unjust because it was incorrectly justified beforehand, which I do not.



Actually, we have argued over this so many times that I am suprised that you would argue I am merely justifying it 'after the fact.' I have always maintained that intervention was justified in and of itself because of Saddam's despotism and resulting genocide. It was ALSO justified by our suspicions of WMD, which you shared unless I am mistaken. That one is so far unproven does not affect the other.



Stopping genocide will stand the test of time. Administration bungling does not change this.



Uh, I think you're missing the point here. We believed Saddam had WMDs because he refused to allow unbridled inspection. Even Saddam's own people are now saying he didn't open up because he didn't want us to know for sure. It was illogical for him to play brinksmanship games when facing invasion. That was the most convincing point for me before the war. Really the point of reversing the question, however, is that it is just as telling that we committed to non-intervention if he opened up. That means it the intervention (when looking at the Administration's motivation) was not to stop genocide, but also means it was not to occupy Iraq and steal their oil, or to avenge Saddam's assassination attempt, or any of the other conspiracy theories coming out of the anti-war camp.

We may or may not be disagreeing here I guess. If your point is to castigate the administration on their justification of the war, I have no argument for that. If your point is to say the war itself was unjustified, then we are disagreeing. For you, one seems to lead to the next, and I don't think that is true.


1) Okay, we may actually be able to find some common ground here. You are admiting that the argument as presently put forth ( that WMD were not the causi belli) is insubstantial, but claim that you think that there was good cause aside from that, just not made pre-war. I disagree, but at least we agree on something. Now, are you willing to admit that it is inconsistent with a responsible government to mislead them into war, even of you feel that there are other valid causes to go to war, just not ones that the people would support? Are you not afraid of the precedent this sets? If we excuse the government lying to us about going to war, what can we not excuse of them?

As for the justification aside from the case made pre-war, we both know where we stand on that.


2) After the fact was in reference to the pro-war argument as a whole, not necessarily you in particular. But I would state that I recall you slighting what you felt was my ivory tower position on the war by claiming that I was risking us being nuked to stand up for my ideals. That said, yes I felt that it was probable that Saddam had WMDs. My arguments wasn't based on the probablity that he didn't, but on the difference between probablity that he did and certainty that he did, coupled with the standard needed to 'unwake the sleeping sword of war. ' There were other objections; our evident rush to war, our unwillingness to reveal our basis for our claims, as in 9-11 connection, ect. But in terms of WMD, my argument waa that the argument against Saddam having them, as opposed to, say , Israel, was that he had agreed in treaty with the UN to not have them, and that in that same treaty the UNSC was designated as the body which would determine breach, degree of breach, and consequence of breech. As such, we now stand in breach as much as Iraq ever did, probably more, by superceding the authority on this matter we agreed to in the same treaty.

3) Will stopping genocide stand the test of time everywhere it is practiced, or only in those lands that have possessions and/or strategic position we covet? Will administrative lying to the people to get wars it wants done stand the test of time as well?

4) As said, not our area of pervue, the UN's...and which one of us now seems likely to have been advocating the wisest position, on the issue of WMD alone? Us or the UN? ANd , again, as the NIE report states, not even our opinion, merely the conclusion of the war bent White House.

[HayesStreet]

Originally posted by MacBeth
1) Okay, we may actually be able to find some common ground here. You are admiting that the argument as presently put forth ( that WMD were not the causi belli) is insubstantial, but claim that you think that there was good cause aside from that, just not made pre-war. I disagree, but at least we agree on something.

This is confusingly written so I am hesitant to agree with it.

I am saying that whether or not the administration was totally forthright or even outrightly deceptive, about its information about Saddam's WMDs, there was ample justification to intervene in Iraq. Also, I never said the good causes were not made pre-war. I've consistently pointed out they WERE made pre-war.

Originally posted by MacBeth
Now, are you willing to admit that it is inconsistent with a responsible government to mislead them into war, even of you feel that there are other valid causes to go to war, just not ones that the people would support? Are you not afraid of the precedent this sets? If we excuse the government lying to us about going to war, what can we not excuse of them?

I'm not really comfortable with your conclusions, which you present as fact, that 'the people' would not have supported an intervention in Iraq minus the 'niger connection' or the 'aluminum tubes.' I recall you relying heavily on some poll of before/after the SOTU, and I don't think that is reliable. The public could just as easily have become comfortable with the idea absent those references.

Again, my point is not to defend the Bush Administration, per se, but to defend the justified intervention in Iraq. If you want to rip into Bush, be my guest.

Originally posted by MacBeth
2) After the fact was in reference to the pro-war argument as a whole, not necessarily you in particular. But I would state that I recall you slighting what you felt was my ivory tower position on the war by claiming that I was risking us being nuked to stand up for my ideals. That said, yes I felt that it was probable that Saddam had WMDs. My arguments wasn't based on the probablity that he didn't, but on the difference between probablity that he did and certainty that he did, coupled with the standard needed to 'unwake the sleeping sword of war. '

I slighted your 'ivory tower syndrome' because you went so far as to advocate that ANY state has the right to develop nuclear weapons. I stand by that argument. That philosophy would indeed risk nuclear confrontation and is certainly enough justification to 'unwake the snoozing snake of war.'

And it really pisses me off that you act like you are the only proponent of 'ideals.' In the same breath you write off victims of genocide as 'unfortunate by-products' of non-intervention.

Originally posted by MacBeth
There were other objections; our evident rush to war, our unwillingness to reveal our basis for our claims, as in 9-11 connection, ect. But in terms of WMD, my argument waa that the argument against Saddam having them, as opposed to, say , Israel, was that he had agreed in treaty with the UN to not have them, and that in that same treaty the UNSC was designated as the body which would determine breach, degree of breach, and consequence of breech. As such, we now stand in breach as much as Iraq ever did, probably more, by superceding the authority on this matter we agreed to in the same treaty.

I'm not sure why we should re-engage on this now. The point is that the justification for intervening in Iraq over WMDs was logical even without the tubing or niger stories. It was perfectly logical to assume that Saddam had hidden programs as he wouldn't allow inspectors unfettered access. Allowing that program to develop in the face of UN feet dragging is not something that was desirable. Your position is, and has been, that intervention outside the UN is illegitimate. But that is not a defensible position, imo, as Bosnia proves.

Originally posted by MacBeth
3) Will stopping genocide stand the test of time everywhere it is practiced, or only in those lands that have possessions and/or strategic position we covet?

Being facetious gets you nowhere. And nice try doging the question. In 100 years when people look and say 'what it justified to intervene in Iraq?,' they will say 'of course, it would be unthinkable to let it continue when the means available to stop it were at hand. Just as now we look back and wonder why no one stepped in to save the Jews from the holocaust.

Originally posted by MacBeth
Will administrative lying to the people to get wars it wants done stand the test of time as well?

Again you are assuming support would not have come otherwise, which is unprovable. And again I say, no, lying to the people is not good. But neither is governing by public opinion polls. I'd rather have an elected official doing what they think it right, than trying to decipher a USA Today poll.

Originally posted by MacBeth
4) As said, not our area of pervue, the UN's...and which one of us now seems likely to have been advocating the wisest position, on the issue of WMD alone? Us or the UN? ANd , again, as the NIE report states, not even our opinion, merely the conclusion of the war bent White House.

Do we agree that the offer not to intervene proves both that genocide was not the administrations #1 concern AND that stealing oil was not the main concern? You seem to be avoiding the question put back to you.

Which advocated the wisest position? The US, of course. Stopping genocide that the UN would have allowed to continue is the wisest position. That is my point. The war was justified regardless of whether or not the Administration acted properly.

I think it might be more accurate for your title of the thread to be: Seven Simple Questions for those who continue to support the Administration's positioning of the war.

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by HayesStreet
This is confusingly written so I am hesitant to agree with it.

I am saying that whether or not the administration was totally forthright or even outrightly deceptive, about its information about Saddam's WMDs, there was ample justification to intervene in Iraq. Also, I never said the good causes were not made pre-war. I've consistently pointed out they WERE made pre-war.



I'm not really comfortable with your conclusions, which you present as fact, that 'the people' would not have supported an intervention in Iraq minus the 'niger connection' or the 'aluminum tubes.' I recall you relying heavily on some poll of before/after the SOTU, and I don't think that is reliable. The public could just as easily have become comfortable with the idea absent those references.

Again, my point is not to defend the Bush Administration, per se, but to defend the justified intervention in Iraq. If you want to rip into Bush, be my guest.



I slighted your 'ivory tower syndrome' because you went so far as to advocate that ANY state has the right to develop nuclear weapons. I stand by that argument. That philosophy would indeed risk nuclear confrontation and is certainly enough justification to 'unwake the snoozing snake of war.'

And it really pisses me off that you act like you are the only proponent of 'ideals.' In the same breath you write off victims of genocide as 'unfortunate by-products' of non-intervention.



I'm not sure why we should re-engage on this now. The point is that the justification for intervening in Iraq over WMDs was logical even without the tubing or niger stories. It was perfectly logical to assume that Saddam had hidden programs as he wouldn't allow inspectors unfettered access. Allowing that program to develop in the face of UN feet dragging is not something that was desirable. Your position is, and has been, that intervention outside the UN is illegitimate. But that is not a defensible position, imo, as Bosnia proves.



Being facetious gets you nowhere. And nice try doging the question. In 100 years when people look and say 'what it justified to intervene in Iraq?,' they will say 'of course, it would be unthinkable to let it continue when the means available to stop it were at hand. Just as now we look back and wonder why no one stepped in to save the Jews from the holocaust.



Again you are assuming support would not have come otherwise, which is unprovable. And again I say, no, lying to the people is not good. But neither is governing by public opinion polls. I'd rather have an elected official doing what they think it right, than trying to decipher a USA Today poll.



Do we agree that the offer not to intervene proves both that genocide was not the administrations #1 concern AND that stealing oil was not the main concern? You seem to be avoiding the question put back to you.

Which advocated the wisest position? The US, of course. Stopping genocide that the UN would have allowed to continue is the wisest position. That is my point. The war was justified regardless of whether or not the Administration acted properly.

I think it might be more accurate for your title of the thread to be: Seven Simple Questions for those who continue to support the Administration's positioning of the war.


1) Obviously I disagree that there was ample justifucation for the war...ample reason to want to do something, yes, but that exists throughout the world. If we don't get involved from now on, throughout the rest of the world, in places like Liberia, it gives a lot of weight to the arguments that we had less than noble ulteriro motives which made Iraq such an urgent priority. If you approve of the invasion of Iraq for humantiarian reasons...if you feel that it was so compelling that it demanded/justified our actions involved, including turning world support into world antipathy, etc...does it stand to follow that you fully support the US now comitting troops and funding to all the humantarian tragedies throughout the world, especially those much worse than Iraq, like the Congo, Liberia, etc.? Stands to reason, no?


And if the causes were made pre-war, can you re-phrase your answer to question one to incompass that feeling?



2) I think it's pretty clear that the people weren't supporting the war...there were several polls, and all of them showed the same thing. Yes, it is possible to conclude that the people might have come to approve the war, but highly unlikely, and what is more it is clear that the administration didn't think it would happen if they felt the need to do what they did. What is more, I don;t think that the administration deserves that extreme benfit if the doubt, as their actions happened at a time when the support wasn't there, and saying that it's too bad for them that we'll never know how it might have turned out otherwise is akin to suggesting a mugger should be given the benefit of the doubt about keeping the mone he stole because it's possible that his victim might have given it to him had he not mugged him.

To seperate the 'intervention' and Bush is impossible, in that no one...no one..was talking Iraq or invasion until Bush took it out of the fridge and out it on the front burner, and the secondary reasons you are sighting, the non 9-11 or WMD arguments, had been in place for decades without anyone doing anything to stop it; what makes you think, at all, that this long standing issue would suddenly have lead us to war? 9-11 changed the world again?


3) I agree that you sighted my ivory tower argument regarding our disagreement over proliferation as well, I was eeven going to pre-emot this response by mentioning it in my last post but didn't, but you also said it with reference to not acting in Iraq and the threat they posed.

And what the hell do you have to be pissed off about; I was paraphraseing your criticism of me, not infering any special status of mine...you were the one who told me I was too concerned with ideals and not enough with reality. And I have never written them off, I have said that the price is too high and the motivation is too suspect the way we went about it.

4) Bosnia wasn't a situation which had clearly set parameters which we had agreed to, as Iraq did.

5) I was being serious, to a degree. Any of those countries, and many more, would have benefits were we to invade them, but it is hoped that they wouldn't be supported because they lack cause. Same here. And I ask again, in 100 years will we have gotten involved wherever humanitarian causes exist, or merely where we have coinciding interests? Becuase, as I have said repeatedly, the British, Romans, Athenians etc. have all done the other route before...I know, I know, we're different; we're just going in, getting Sdaam out, and leaving...right? Or are we setting up 'favorable' trade conditions, a system of government we want them to have rather than what they want to have, and using their land as a base of operations to extend our influence in the area? Yeah, sounds completely non-Imperial to me.


Are you going to answer the other questions? Is anyone?