http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32894 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- An unnecessary war -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: June 4, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com What was America's real motive for attacking Iraq? Was it oil? Empire? To make the Middle East safe for Sharon? That these questions are being asked, not only by America's critics, is the fault of the administration alone. For its crucial argument as to why it had no choice but to launch the first preventive war in American history is collapsing like a sand castle in a rising surf. Iraq, in retrospect, was no threat whatsoever to the United States. We fought an unnecessary war, and now we must rebuild a nation at a rising cost in blood and treasure. Before the war, many who opposed it argued that no matter the evil character of Saddam, Iraq had not attacked us, did not threaten us, did not want war with us, could not defeat us. Why then were we about to invade Iraq? Came the administration answer: Saddam has ties to al-Qaida. He has an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. He is a year or so away from being able to build a nuclear bomb, and he will use these weapons on us or our allies, or give them to terrorists who will use them in the United States. And these weapons will kill not just the 3,000 who perished on Sept. 11, but tens and even hundreds of thousands of innocent Americans. Do you want to risk that? Do you want to do nothing and risk a "mushroom cloud" in an American city? Or do you want to remove this mortal threat, now? So went the clinching argument for war. Opponents answered that the U.N. inspectors had found nothing, that Saddam had even invited in the CIA to have a look, that surely he could not launch a sneak attack on America or her allies with U.N. inspectors rummaging around his country. The War Party scoffed. Hans Blix, they said, was an incompetent and an appeaser who would deliberately not find weapons rather than be responsible for causing a war. So President Bush launched America's first pre-emptive war, and it was a triumph of American arms. But eight weeks have now elapsed, and we have not yet found a single weapon of mass destruction, though we were told, again and again, that Saddam had "30,000 munitions." This weekend, The Washington Post's Dana Milbank revisited the Bush administration's categorical claims in the run-up to war. On Aug. 26, 2002, Vice President Cheney told the Veterans of Foreign Wars: "Stated simply, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us." On Dec. 2, 2002, Ari Fleischer told the White House press corps, "You've heard the president say repeatedly that he has chemical and biological weapons." On Jan. 7, 2003, Fleischer added, "We know for a fact that there are weapons there." Also in January, Rumsfeld declared, "There's no doubt in my mind that they currently have chemical and biological weapons." In his Feb. 8 radio address, Bush declared, "We have sources that tell us that Saddam recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons – the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." Cheney added in March, "We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." On March 17, on the eve of war, President Bush told the nation, "Intelligence ... leaves no doubt that the Iraqi regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." So persuaded, America united behind the president and went to war. Something is terribly wrong here. It is impossible to believe the president would deliberately lie to the nation when he knew the full truth would be discovered at war's end in a few weeks. Either he was misled, or he was deceived – and so, too, was Secretary of State Colin Powell. Who did it? Who was responsible for the intelligence failure, or the dishonest use of selected intelligence, or the conscious and deliberate deceit of a president and secretary of state? Where are the weapons? We have searched 300 sites and arms dumps and found not one shell. If Saddam had the weapons, why did he not use them? If he destroyed them before the war, as Rumsfeld now argues, he fulfilled the terms of Resolution 1441 and could have saved himself by showing U.N. inspectors where and how he did it. Why would Saddam let himself, his family and his regime perish protecting weapons he either no longer had or did not intend to use? Is it possible Iraq never had that vast arsenal of anthrax, VX, sarin and mustard gas we were led to believe? Did the intelligence agencies fail us, or did someone "cook the books" to meet the recipe for an imperial war? It is time Congress investigated the Office of Special Plans, set up in the Pentagon to sift and interpret all intelligence, and placed under neoconservative super-hawk Paul Wolfowitz.
"Before the war, many who opposed it argued that no matter the evil character of Saddam, Iraq had not attacked us, did not threaten us, did not want war with us, could not defeat us. Why then were we about to invade Iraq? Came the administration answer: Saddam has ties to al-Qaida. He has an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. He is a year or so away from being able to build a nuclear bomb, and he will use these weapons on us or our allies, or give them to terrorists who will use them in the United States. And these weapons will kill not just the 3,000 who perished on Sept. 11, but tens and even hundreds of thousands of innocent Americans. Do you want to risk that? Do you want to do nothing and risk a "mushroom cloud" in an American city? Or do you want to remove this mortal threat, now? So went the clinching argument for war. " I am not a Pat Buchanan fan, but that is an amazingly accurate replay of the very same argument made in here. Bang on. It's almost direct quotes from some of the responses I remember reading.
Ahhhh...you beat me to it. I was just about to add to my post: Ok, now here comes the " Why Pat Buchanan has his own problems with the Bush admin., therefore his article is somehow invalid even if it's based on a very accurate re-telling of events" spin. Just like we saw with Carter, Mandela, Schwartkopf, the Pope, ex intel chiefs, diplomats, etc... The best one ever though, and I can't remember who it was, was when Bush Sr. came out and criticized his son's handling of this in a unilateral fashion, and expressed serious concerns about it's effect on the global community and US's place in it, there were some whoa ctually bashed Bush Sr. saying...get this...that he was just jealous because his son was doing what he couldn't, and if his son did what he couldn't he would look relatively worse, so he was trying to throw a monkey wrench into the whole thing. That one had me rolling on the floor for hours... Mr. C...if it hadn't been for the other interesting article you posted just now, which I was reading, i would have had this in JUST BEFORE you posted it.
Actually, I'm not saying that he has problems with the Bush Admin. His point of view is valid. I'm just saying that people shouldn't act like he is just now breaking from the conservative mainstream. It happened a while ago.
I added to my post...but, cool, I get your point. Do you agree with me that what I said will be the bulk of the commentary, if there is any, from those who he disagrees with?
I think there will be to a certain extent. But I believe that the more responsible sources will take the arugments on head- on. I can arleady see some flaws in Buchanan's article. First, he doesn't explain Bush's full arguments, which included the need for a democracy to begin reform of the Middle East. And he doesn't mention human rights abuses. Second, how can he be so sure Bush is lying rather than the intelligence community having faulty evidence or the WMD's being well hidden? Clinton laid out some of the same arguments Bush did.
well he kinda does. he says that either Bush knowingly lied or that someone was lying to him. pretty straight-forward. all-in-all, this administration just seems shady. nothing but under-the-table deals, ultra-conservative stances, and flat-out lies. i just can't trust those guys, and that's a sh!tty feeling considering it's my freakin president.
But Clinton did not start a war with WMD as its pretext. I hope you see that this is a big difference.
MacBeth -- call it spin...but the man is a proclaimed isolationist. he has bemoaned free trade...spoke up against NAFTA...he is very much about the US taking care of the US and the US only. I'm guessing you and Pat don't have much in common when it comes to foreign policy. Are you attempting to bolster his credibility on this issue?? How about other issues where you disagree with him?
You know that PB has been around a long time. He has been writing op-ed pieces and appearing as a talking head in politico shows forever. His relevancy does not depend on his failed presidential bids. Think up something more relevant next time.
Why bother? The man is an avowed, die-hard isolationist. What do you expect him to think about the war? Any war? Who cares what an extremist thinks?
I don't agree with him on a lot of things...but what has that to do with anything? He didn't write a piece on political philosophy here...he recounted, accurately, the arguments for and against the war leading up to it, and pointed out the flaws which seem to be evident in the pro-war case, as recent events have made clearer and clearer. What does his isolationist POV have to do with anything, considering the content of the piece, not the agenda? If there were 3 lynchings in Texas today, and Jessie Jackson came out and said that this proved that racism is alive and well in Texas, should I just discount it because I don't usually agree with him, and because his position on race relations is on record? Or, the reverse...the admin supported this war, right? They have been pretty clear about that, correct? So why then don't you automatically discount all their statements supporting the war in the same manner you are discounting Buchanan's?
Ironically, Buchanan brings up Paul Wolfowitz, who is the assitant and protege of Richard Perle, the head of the Pentagon Defense Policy Board. Of course Richard Perle while working on Senator Henry Jackson's campaign gave classified information to the Isreali Embassy. THESE are the guys that are giving us the information about whether we should attack Iraq or not?!?!?! Why not just ask Ariel Sharon what he thinks about attacking Iraq, its much more direct ! So we have people whose interests are more Israeli, Wolfowitz sister lives there as well, deciding whether we should attack Iraq...
