By posting this, I'm not intending to defend Bush. I'm just pointing out that the issues that led us into war with Iraq are systemic, and they won't be fixed by changing out this President for another one that thinks that it's the United States' duty to be involved in conflicts all over the world. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html
The point is that there was no reason to pull the trigger on this war, that has killed Americans and our economy at the same time. Saddam was a horrible guy but the military was unprepared for the post war situation, and the war was completely unneccesary. DD
Yes, I did, but to me I have never thought it was about Bush lying per-se but more of him embellishing to get the country to war..... Which was a very bad move, and has killed our economy and hurt our country immeasurably... Bush is the worst president in the HISTORY of this country by a long shot, let's just hope he hasn't killed the Golden Goose for good. DD
I know there was some embellishing... er, polishing that went on, but the ones who would make the determination had access to the same info that Bush had and were the ones who actually granted permission to go there... Is there a more poignant statement of that than Rockefeller's? I think the immediate second-guessing (by mostly Democrats) was partly genuine and partly-political buttressing. The latter was good planning in case the sledding got tough-- which it did.
But Clinton had all this information too, and he did not take us into a unneccessary war. I mean Afganastan had the world behind us, and we still are not done there.... But Iraq? IRAQ???? They were not even a part of 9-11..... This made no sense then, and makes even less today.....a meaningless war, unless the meaning is to use the old stockpile of weapons, and order more newer supplies. DD
Wow, talk about a disingenous way to quote the report - here is the full quote: That's the essence of the willful blindness charge, which like it or not is a form of lying. That's just one example, there are other similar examples plus several findings where the Admin made claiims that were not substantiated by available intelligence. It's interesting that the author himself is doing exactly what the Bush administration did on Iraq - cherry picking certain items to further a political agenda and deliberately ignoring contrary evidence.
Fair enough. Now explain Rockefeller's remark. It's one thing to "grade papers" and another entirely to defend the nation.
Irrelevant, so no. It's one thing to plan a war on paper with a bunch of armchair quarterbacks based on phony rationale, and based on the fantasy that Iraq would rebuild itself, it's another thing to execute that plan and have it blow up in your face and waste trillions of dollars and thousands and thousands of lives doing it.
How is a confirming statement made by someone who 2 years later is a leading critic irrelevant? Is this where you picked up your Armchair Quarterback theme? How do you tell which intel is phony and which is not? Didn't Clinton bomb an aspirin factory? He was lucky that he just had to make a tiny decision...
Bush didn't have to make a large decision on IRaq except that he made the decision to put himself in that position.
Pre-war quotes from "lying" House and Senate democrats... "In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad. In the 4 years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001." "It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein wiill continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East which, as we know all too well, affects American security." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 Congressional Record – Sen. Hillary Clinton http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10288&position=all John Kerry: “I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq – Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991.” (July 2002) John Kerry: “I believe the record of Saddam Hussein’s ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force if necessary.” "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 U.S. Senate - Ted Kennedy "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 Transcript of Gore’s speech, printed in USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002 Congressional Record – Sen. John F. Kerry http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10174&position=all John Kerry on the floor of the Senate October 2002: "With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents? Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), October 9, 2002 Congressional Record – Sen. John F. Kerry http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10171&position=all “The Joint Chiefs should provide Congress with casualty estimates for a war in Iraq as they have done in advance of every past conflict. These estimates should consider Saddam's possible use of chemical or biological weapons against our troops. Unlike the gulf war, many experts believe Saddam would resort to chemical and biological weapons against our troops in a desperate -attempt to save his regime if he believes he and his regime are ultimately threatened.” Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Oct. 8, 2002 Congressional Record - Sen. Ted Kennedy http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S10090&dbname=2002_record John Kerry: “I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq – Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991.” (July 2002) John Kerry: “I believe the record of Saddam Hussein’s ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force if necessary.” John Kerry: “I would disagree with John McCain that it's the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it's what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that--that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It's the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat." (October 2002) John Kerry: “If You Don’t Believe . . . Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn’t vote for me.” (January 2003) John Kerry: Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who must be disarmed. (March 2003) "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."..."Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq’s efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction." – Sen. John Edwards, October 10, 2002 Congressional Record – Sen. John Edwards http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10325&position=all "There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." – Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001 http://usinfo.org/wf-archive/2001/011207/epf510.htm "We should be hell bent on getting those weapons of mass destruction, hell bent on having a credible approach to them, but we should try to do it in a way which keeps the world together and that achieves our goal which is removing the... defanging Saddam.." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Dec. 9, 2002 Online with Jim Lehrer – Public Broadcasting Service http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/iraq_12-10.html "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 Transcript of Gore’s speech, printed in USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 Transcript of Gore’s speech, printed in USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 U.S. Senate - Ted Kennedy "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 Congressional Record – Robert Byrd http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S9874&position=all "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002 Congressional Record – Sen. John F. Kerry http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10174&position=all "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 Congressional Record –Sen. Jay Rockefeller "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" – Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 Congressional Record – Rep. Henry Waxman MY SOURCE FOR ALL OF THESE QUOTES: http://www.americandaily.com/article/4694
He made a decision about a War on Terror. Remember the Axis of Evil? You gotta start somewhere and he opted for Afghanistan as the training ground ... then Iraq.
Because it's totally irrelevant to the question of what the Bush Administration did in Iraq, on what basis they did it, and what they knew or more importantly should have known when they did it. Probably by evaluating evidence in total, not by picking what you want to believe is true (despite its obviously dubious nature, coming from interested parties like the Chalabi gang and "CURVEBALL") in order to further a predetermined course of action.
Note to self: When presenting a view that reflects systemic problems in American Government, it will devolve into a blame game between those that ally themselves with Republicans and those that ally themselves with Democrats.
You really think this was a piece intended to illustrate systemic problems rather than absolve the Bush Administration? Once again - the author's obfuscation is responsible for discrediting this purpose. If we act deliberately ignorant, as the author did, of the fact that there was contrary information , the state of our intelligence service looks a lot worse than it actually is.
It's only irrelevant if you insist on playing the blame-game. There was wide-spread consensus held even by those who later became critics that doing nothing might be the greatest risk. You are dodging the question. No doubt some of that went on but there truly must have been some tough choices where unbiased intel indicated contradictions. All the other Senators seem to have seen the same stuff and held many of the same Armchair QB positions....
