Paging Dr. Spin...Another Emergency!

Nice post Macbeth. You're a saint. You have the patience to actually talk to these people who can't even admit the obvious. To say that Bush lied is so far unproven but seems more likely every day with new evidence of the pressure they put on the CIA, their spinning of intelligence etc...
These guys claim that the search for WMD in Iraq was not a failure because it's not over yet. This is a case of denial, and these same people will probably claim 30 years from now that there were WMD's hidden in Iraq but we just didn't have enough time to find them. People like this are so blinded by their bias that it is useless to talk to them, but you give them more credit as people as I can, and for that you are a saint sir.

 

Curiously, the Brits have decided that Blair did not mislead his countrymen, even though he used the same intel Bush did.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030707/ap_on_re_eu/britain_iraq_findings_1

Just a couple of excerpts:

"It is too soon to tell whether the government's assertions on Iraq's chemical and biological weapons will be borne out. However, we have no doubt that the threat posed to United Kingdom forces was genuinely perceived as a real and present danger and that the steps taken to protect them were justified by the information available at the time."

and

"The claims made in the September dossier were in all probability well founded on the basis of the intelligence then available, although as we have already stated we have concerns about the emphasis given to some of them. ... In the absence of reliable evidence that intelligence personnel have either complained about or sought to distance themselves from the content of the dossier, allegations of politically inspired meddling cannot credibly be established."

Oh, and

"Consistent with the conclusions reached elsewhere in this report, we conclude that ministers did not mislead Parliament."

Now, since he and Bush were using basically the same intel, and the Brits are being even harder in their critique of the question of its veracity and their leader's intentions than we are... I'd say that your accusations are full of smoke and Bush has nothing to worry about.

As for the WMD - here's a good one by Richard Spertzel, former head of UNSCOM's biological team:

"THE POLITICS OF MASS DESTRUCTION"
by Richard O. Spertzel
WALL STREET JOURNAL
June 27, 2003


Even as evidence is uncovered that Saddam Hussein was planning to revive his nuclear-weapons program at the earliest possible date, politicians and pundits alike lament the failure of coalition forces to find a "smoking gun." Despite the recent discovery of plans and parts for a uranium-enrichment centrifuge, some presidential candidates have accused the Bush administration of lying about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to justify the war with Iraq.

Such assertions ignore all that has been learned and has transpired during the last 12-plus years. As I've said time and again, expecting any inspection regime to find a massive cache of WMDs is a lesson in self-delusion. Such folly can only bring cheer to those who opposed the war in the first place and to those who simply oppose the Bush administration.

Recall that during the first Gulf War, Iraq stored its biological agent-filled munitions in pits dug in the sand or in abandoned railroad tunnels. Such sites are not easily found. Good intelligence emanating from those Iraqi personnel responsible for the deployment, protection and control of such storage sites will be required. Indeed, it was an Iraqi scientist who this week led coalition forces to the site where the uranium-enrichment equipment was buried. But many WMD personnel were part of the Special Security Organization under Saddam's younger son, Qusay. The information is not likely to be obtained easily.

Some pundits question, if Iraq had WMDs, why did they not use them? Iraq learned from the first Gulf War that coalition forces headed by the U.S. could advance very rapidly. Iraq also indicated in testimony to the U.N. Special Commission, or Unscom, that biological weapons would have little effect in stopping an advancing military force. Rather, their interest was to use biological weapons to intimidate their neighbors and cause them to "see things Iraq's way." Thus its failure to use biological WMDs should not be a surprise to anyone. The failure to use chemical WMDs is also not surprising considering the apparent confusion within the Iraqi command structure during the race to Baghdad.

Then, why have such weapons not been found? The answer may lie in the training and experience of the inspectors. The initial team looking for WMDs in Iraq was more reminiscent of site exploiters than inspectors. True, if they found a bomb or missile warhead, they were capable of further exploitation of the find to determine its contents. But they apparently did not have testing instruments capable of detecting trace-amounts of biological-weapons agents.

The next iteration of the coalition inspectors was supposed to have a number of inspectors that had extensive experience in Iraq and has been so misrepresented in the media. I was asked in February to propose a list of Unscom experienced biological inspectors (a so-called A team) that had multiple inspection trips to Iraq. These were to be from the U.S., the U.K. and Australia. In March, after the concept was approved, I was asked to contact those on my list to assure they were willing and able to devote the time. All but one agreed to the deployment. None of the individuals on that list ever made it to Iraq.

A few weeks ago David Albright, writing in the Washington Post, stated that he had been contacted by several Iraqi nuclear scientists who asserted that they were afraid to talk to the coalition inspectors because of the way they were being treated by the inspectors -- interrogation, threats, etc., rather than with any degree of respect. The interviewing of Iraqi scientists is where extensive experience would have been most valuable. One doesn't need to like what was done or the individual scientist to treat them with respect. Experienced inspectors knew this. Furthermore, experienced inspectors knew what, when, and how to pursue a subject that is unlikely to occur to a neophyte.

There is nothing that the U.S. could threaten the Iraqi scientists with that could approach what they've endured these past 30 to 40 years. A scientist I remain in contact with had been imprisoned by Iraq for 17 months in the 1990s. In early March this year, with tensions building, he was again arrested for fear he would disclose information Iraq did not want disclosed.

It is encouraging that the third and current iteration under the CIA is headed by David Kay, which may account for the recent breakthrough in uncovering the uranium-enrichment plans. In regard to other WMDS, Iraq imported or retained over the last several years key pieces of equipment that could not readily be carried off by looters. If located, extensive intrusive sampling with the right test system might tell wonders about Iraq's biological-weapons programs.

Let there be no doubt, Iraq retained an active biological-weapons program. Unscom had adequate evidence of such. In 1998, presented with the evidence, the leading biological-weapons experts from the U.S., U.K., Russia, France, Sweden, Australia, Germany, Switzerland, Australia, Ukraine, Romania and Canada all agreed with the Unscom findings and observations. Incredibly, U.S. and British politicians with little or no knowledge of biological weapons and biological warfare are choosing to believe otherwise.

Mr. Spertzel was head of the biological-weapons section of Unscom from 1994-99.

Now, I realize that none of you who are in the "There are no WMD in Iraq" camp will even bother reading this, so I'll just summarize: An expert who really really knows his sh*t is saying that you'd have to have ignored 12 years worth of history, and be somewhat of a fool, to think that the weapons are not still there somewhere; it's just going to be difficult to find them.

You say I'm in denial? I say you're going to look like a fu*king moron when it eventually happens.

 

Just curious, how much time would have to pass until you would admit that there are no WMD in Iraq?
Right now, those who supported the war are the ones who "look like a fu*king moron," and now they want to bring me down to their level of stupidity by trying to make me believe that the war was carried out in order to liberate the Iraqi people.
This war was carried out on a "hunch" on WMD under the banner of "The War on Terror." The horror that 200 American soldiers and more than 2,000 Iraqi citizens lost their lives based on a hunch is morally disgusting.
No, I think the the people who "look like a fu*king moron" are the ones who supported this war despite the lack of evidence given and now they're just going to ride out the storm until the American public forgets. Sad truth is that it'll probably work. Tell the public that they are still searching for WMD but "making progress" and the public will eventually be distracted with other issues until the incredible loss of life that occurred in Iraq turns into old news.
But seriously, I really want to know how much time would have to pass until you would admit that there are no WMD? Or would you never admit it?

 

Caught in a trap, you can't look back.... Are you seriously suggesting that your contention wasn't that we were lied to? Fine, let those who support St MacBeth understand he IS NOT saying we were lied to about WMD. Fair enough. MacBeth IS NOT saying we were lied to about WMD.

Simply put, that is a ******* lie. I point specifically to the thread where your contention was that anyone with the capability to build a nuke was legitimate in such an aim. Haven, who noone would accuse of taking sides between you and I called your suggestion QUOTE 'ludicrous.' To turn around now and deny it crushes your credibility so much more than if you just for once admit you had made a mistake. The sad part is that I've continuously made a specific point to bring this up everytime you try to pull your moral vaccuum bull**** so people will understand how catastrophic your philosophy would be in action, and you've ignored it at best, and trumpeted it at worst until now, when you've finally realized NOONE else would support such an absurd philosophy.

Uh, yeah. I'm sure many experts in international relations would conclude the world was a much less dangerous place with multiple thousands of warheads than with a few warheads... That makes sense. On one hand we have total nuclear annihilation of the planet and on the other not. I'm sure given a ballot we'd all chose to risk the first...

Irrelevant completely, and totally false. Your argument has ALWAYS been that we have no moral authority to stop another nation from proliferating, not that counterproliferation policies don't work (which is itself completely irrelevant to the morality of the policy). In addition, as I said above, its totally and completely false. US counterproliferation policies have stopped Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, South Africa, arguably Brazil and Argentina at a minimum from proliferating.

Completely false. Three arguments were advanced for the intervention in Iraq. First, and foremost (pick ANY speech or release from the Bush Administration) was that Saddam was a genocidal tyrant. Second was WMD, and third was his connection to terrorism. As far as whether or not WMD is determined, above you've clearly stated you DIDN'T say we had been lied to about WMD. Which is it? As usual you make arguments of convenience, but luckily we don't all forget what you've said in prior paragraphs and posts. So if we weren't 'lied to about WMD' how can you possibly conclude there are no WMD?

Hmmm, was the Marshall Plan during your lifetime (or at least when you were old enough to have your own opinion)? Was Live Aid a military intervention? Which 'wars' did you support again? The Gulf War? Which you have clearly labelled a 'UN action' and not a US action? Which US 'proactive action' did you support again? You are clearly on record as being against the interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo, correct? You were clearly against interventions to stop genocide, correct? Which foreign policies have you been FOR? I have named foreign policies I have been for, and against in my lifetime. Have you? I think not.

Like what for example? The Marshall Plan doesn't count unless you are a lot older than I think you are.

Uh, lets see. Rachet up an arms race against an equally powerful opponent in which conflict could destroy the planet vs an arms race against no equally powerful opponent, none of which have the capability to destoy the planet? I wonder how you EVER get to the conclusion that Bush's actions are MORE dangerous than Reagans? Reagan had much more successful experience in foreign policy? Please elaborate. To the best of my knowledge Reagan didn't have ANY foreign policy experience before becoming President. And I really don't see any reasoning from you about why this administrations policies can't work just as Reagan's did. It was his ideology that forced change. Other countries knew he was not playing Realpolitik, but rather was doing what he believed was the right thing to do. And they reacted. The same outcome is possible with Bush. You have nothing to say except spurious and unprovable contentions that 'Reagan was smarter' which is completely irrlevant.

 

Dude, wake up. In his last post even Saint MacBeth claims he never said Bush lied. You are supporting a strawman. Hardly worth cannonization, lol.

 

If your criteria is that everytime someone misspeaks its a lie, then sure I'll agree to that. To me a lie has to involve some intent. I think it is more realistic, however, to conclude that Bush is an idiot, and that he may very well have misspoken because he is an idiot, not because he is purposely trying to convey something he knows to be false. And look at the context of that quote. That was not something written out as a speech. It was Bush and Blair taking questions, which is why I say he was stating it off the cuff, not as a press release that was written out.

 

Ahhh. Plausible incompetence (ie the Bush Jr legacy).

BTW HS, does this make you an official Bush apologist?

 

I don't know, does it? That sucks I guess but I can't help but acknowledging that he is stupid.

 

One would think that determining whether or not the 'people' were actually lied to is slightly relevant and important to resolve before you jump to your 'point' that we are "so desensitized to political manipulation that we have essentially thrown in the towel, and are agreeing whith what the White house says because it's easier than dealing with the alternative..." Is that clearer? Do you understand? Although the 9-11 connection has not panned out, one of the justifications is conclusively true (Saddam bad), and one is still undetermined. SO, have we thrown in the towel? I assume you're trying to figure out why people would conclude the things they conclude. Correct me (I'm sure you will) if I'm wrong on that. The people in the poll were not foreign policy specialists, but Joe and Joanna Q Public. They hear that Saddam has and continues to committ genocide (true), that he was a tyrant (true), that he had used Chemical and Biological Weapons (true), that his history indicated he would continue to grab for power (true), that he would continue to pursue Nukes until he got them (true, and even you've admitted as much I believe) - although the timelines range from 6 months to years, that he supported terrorism and backed terrorists (true), and that he was connected to Al Queda (I've always said this was likely unproven). So regardless of whether or not the last is true, Joe and Joanna Q Public support Bush, support the intervention, and believe the above mentioned. The 'alternative' you speak of is not the total rejection of intervention in Iraq, it is rejection of the 9-11 Al Queda connection. People aren't walking around with their arms extended like zombies repeating 'I do not want to contemplate that the government lied to us.' The totality of the argument is convincing enough and so why would they get in a tither over it, or even continue to pour over news reports about it that still don't effect the final decision. Should they know that the Administration has backed off the claims? Of course. Would it change the outcome of our policy? No.

Uh, and you're eventual conclusion was to say that we were lied to, which is what I said, except that you hadn't said it until now. So you are answering my representing you as having said 'we were lied to' as false by saying that you had not yet said it. But then you say it, so what is the point? Your point is based on the premise that we were lied to. You didn't say it in the first post because you were assuming it and starting off from the next step.

I answered those above but you've ignored them, so we can engage about whether having two superpowers with nukes was better than not some other time. I also point to a specific dialogue in which you did indeed say any country that has the means to build the bomb should not be interfered with. You ignore this. Out of hand you dismiss intervention to stop nukes, even if the UN is not or would not intervene. So in your world, if the US is the only thing stopping proliferation, we still would not intervene. In my world, if the US is the only thing stopping proliferation we would intervene. Get it? That is the what the argument that the US should not act gets you, the possibility that rogue states build nukes. Your moral calculation inherently has a risk that you simply don't come to grips with.

No but proliferation can be slowed as the examples I given prove.

I said your criteria/philosophizing would result in proliferation. MacBeth = loose nukes, right? That's what I've said. That is true, as I've explained above. Your criteria precludes any counterproliferation action absent a 'global one.' Whether or not it makes sense for nations to want nukes is irrelevant to whether or not they should have them. As you write below, the more nukes there are the more dangerous the world is. A world constrained by your criteria is a world with more nukes, and a more dangerous world.

I'll let this sterling conclusion speak for you. Is doesn't work but it does. Wonderful.

Strange, but one might think it significant that Taiwan does not have nukes. I daresay the PRC would be most unhappy about it, and have warned of war over much smaller concerns than a nuclear Taiwan. And I'm sure the PRC would be equally happy about a nuclearized Japan. I'm sure North Korea would have been real understanding and patient with South Korea if they had an active nuclear program. And wouldn't it be great if South America's two oldest enemies both had active nuclear programs? Would France be as cosy with Germany if Germany was nuclearized? I again dare to say that Russia would be most unhappy about that. Does seem kinda silly doesn't it?

Not sure what Treeman said or why its relevant. In every speech and every press conference the fact that Saddam was a genocidal tyrant was hit upon. Not much discuss there, that's true. But it could be because noone disputes it. For me this argument was in and of itself justification for intervention, and it was undisputed, so I rank it #1 Justification. Don't know what's not objective about that: three justifications, one undisputed, that's #1 Justification for the Intervention. If you mean there was more airtime about 2 and 3 then I guess so, but what difference does that make?

Dude, I wasn't the one talking about Live Aid and the Marshall Plan. Which US intervention did you support in your lifetime? The first Persian Gulf War was a UN intervention. Our dialogue is about which of us has a more sever bias toward/against US intervention. The only example of US unilateral action that you support is WWII, where we were attacked. Gee, that's quite a stack of US interventions you've supported there, buddy. As for the non-intervention (militarily) aspects of foreign policy, I have named quite a few on wide ranges of topics. If I were 'Aye Aye Sir' and a completely unquestioning drone, as you suggest, I would hardly be capable of doing that, would I? If I had to chose US interventions that were not a good idea, I would probably say Panama was unnecessary. Grenada was hype. Vietnam was a mistake.

Sorry, but out of the many unilateral actions the US has taken, you cannot name one in your lifetime that you supported. So who knee-jerks?

Was action in Bosnia justified? You say no. That is not a misrepresentation of your position. Should we have acted in Bosnia? You say no. That is not a misrepresentation of your position. Your problem is that you assume UN/global action is forthcoming, and that is simply pie in the sky thinking. Genocide continued for years in Bosnia with no UN intervention in sight. You would continue to sacrifice those people and I would not. That is not a misrepresentation of your position. You say as much in the next section.

Yep. How could I possibly be misrepresenting your position? You admit you are against US action to stop genocide. You admit genocide will continue without US action for an unknown amount of time (nothing indicates UN intervention for genocide would be swift). Your position = genocide. That is not a misrepresentation.

Oh my!!! We'll all be tyrants!!! Oh no!!! Chicken Little please tell us what to do!!!

We have never followed a policy that exclusively relied on only globally sanctioned military action. You can pick any decade in the 20th century and the US unilaterally intervened in multiple somewheres, and you know this already. Your doomsaying is just empirically false. In the meantime, you would allow genocide to happen without action. You would sacrifice those people because if we don't, then some day WE may commit genocide on them. Er, but of course they'll already be dead from the genocide we're ignoring.

Uh, yeah. But you also supported non-military interventions like Live Aid and the Marshall Plan. If we are talking about US policy, period, then I have named US policies I was against, and you have named US policies you were for. If we are talking about US intervention, then you have not named one you supported. Until this post it would be fair to say that I haven't named one I was not for.

Not sure what the point is here. You're talking about gambling with global thermonuclear war, not with pissing the French off. And you completely miss the point, which is not that Reagan was wrong, it was that he did many of the same things Bush is doing like advocating unilateral action, labelling countries 'evil,' and ignoring the UN. And it worked. Just as the new hardline foreign policy Bush is enacting could work. A possibility you never acknowledge.

 

That is not my criteria for a lie. But if you want to find the coziest way out from every incorrect fact uttered to make it look like it wasn't a lie then you are being naive.

First there is the fact that after Bush made that statement, his team tried two more times to justify it. If it wasn't really a '91 report why say that when trying to cover. Or if it was really a different '91 report why come back later and claim that it was IISS report. Especially when the IISS report wasn't even in existence when Bush made the claims.

Add to that the plutonium buy deal that was a fake was just another mistake. Even though the person who handed over the information says that the Bush team knew it was a fake before Bush used it in the State of the Union address.

Another example: Condi Rice claimed that the Aluminum tubing the Iraqis bought 'really could only be used for one thing' referring to nukes. Turns out that was totally false.

We also have: On March 30th Donald Rumsfeld went beyond claiming that IRaq had WMD, but that HE knew where they were, and pointed to positions on the map of Iraq where he said the weapons had been moved to.

Finally: Lawrence Eagleburger, who had worked with many of Bush's team before and was in support of the war, said flat out that he knew of at least 4 and possibly 5 people out of Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, and a few others that were actually happy that there were would be no disarmament and that they actually wanted war. Eagleburger wouldn't name which people wanted the war, but we can certainly guess some of them.

Look at the pattern. Bush lied when he said he had the report. Rice lied about the aluminum tubing. Rumsfeld may have had bad intel, and we have many top advisors actually not wanting a peaceful sollution in Iraq, while hoping for war. When Bush 41 spoke about Pearl Harbor day on the wrong date that was a mistake, and not him lying. Maybe when Bush told a crowd in Poland that they had found WMD in Iraq that was mistake.

I agree Bush was speaking off the cuff, and may have gotten carried away in the moment in all his zeal. However, it still qualifies as a lie. What Condi Rice did, definitely qualifies as a lie. The administration and Bush lied. They were also plain wrong on other matters like Rumsfeld's March 30th statements. Those may or may not have been lies. But if you are going to war, preemptively you need to make sure you are right.

 

I disagree strongly with this. The rationale that Bush said was enforcing UN resolutions. Those resolutions dealt with WMD. The weapons inspectors weren't there for human rights inspections. They were there for WMD. Bush said that if Saddam destroyed his arsenal then there would be no invasion. WMD was always the official reason for the invasion.

I'll post speeches by Bush where he lists the reason for going to war as WMD in another post because they are too long for this one.

It is true that in many of the same speeches he mentioned what a horrible man Saddam was, and all the abuses of him, but the rationale for going in was frist and formost WMD. You could argue that it was the combination of WMD in the hands of horrible guy, but WMD and UN resolutions and it being a threat to the US were what Bush claimed as the justification.

 

One Speech. The lionshare of the speech is given to WMD and broken UN resolutions.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html

In one place -- in one regime -- we find all these dangers, in their most lethal and aggressive forms, exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront.

Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped -- by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations.

To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.

He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- by his deceptions, and by his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.

Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for -- more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.

In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

United Nations' inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.

And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.

Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that it can inflict mass death throughout the region.

In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime's compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and to buy arms for his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens.

In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading, and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq's serious violations of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring Iraq's clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing flagrant violations; and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior totally unacceptable. And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again.

As we meet today, it's been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq, four years for the Iraqi regime to plan, and to build, and to test behind the cloak of secrecy.

We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.

Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. We've tried sanctions. We've tried the carrot of oil for food, and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has a -- nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming.

The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?

The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

We can harbor no illusions -- and that's important today to remember. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. He's fired ballistic missiles at Iran and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians, and 40 Iraqi villages.

My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.

Events can turn in one of two ways: If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The regime will remain unstable -- the region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom, and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here the only thing Rice mentions are the UN resolutions and mentions only WMD as the danger of Iraq.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200203/11/eng20020311_91865.shtml

A senior U.S. official said on Sunday that President George W. Bush has made no decision to attack Iraq while U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney began his trip to the Middle East.

"President Bush has made no decision about the use of force against Iraq," U.S. national security advisor Condoleezza Rice said in an interview with NBC television.

"What he has done is to put the world on notice that the status quo with Saddam Hussein is not acceptable," Rice said. "That the situation in which Iraq continues to flaunt its obligations, under the 1991 armistice, to testify and to demonstrate that it is not acquiring weapons of mass destruction, that is not an acceptable situation."

She said Cheney, who departed on Sunday morning on a 10-day, 12- country trip, would "talk about the broad strategic challenges that we and our allies face in the region."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only mention of the reasons here are bolded. They are 'actual disarmament'.

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V123/N5/iraq_policy.5w.html

Bush Plans More Diplomacy Before Final Decision on Iraq
By Mike Allen and Karen DeYoung

THE WASHINGTON POST -- President Bush plans at least two more weeks of diplomacy before deciding whether to attack Iraq and may support a deadline for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to visibly destroy his chemical and biological weapons, administration officials said Monday.
Officials said the United States and Britain are likely to push for an enforcement resolution in the United Nations Security Council this week. One option being considered, a senior administration official said, was a demand for “actual disarmament” by Iraq within a specified number of days.

“It would say, ‘This is your last window,’” the official said.

Meeting Monday in Brussels, the 15 European Union leaders agreed that U.N. weapons inspectors should get more time to find and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and declared that a war against Iraq “should be used only as a last resort.”

Officials here and in London discussed how to regain momentum lost last week, when chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix told the council that some progress was being made, even though Baghdad was still not cooperating fully with disarmament demands. A majority of members, including France, Russia, China and Germany, then said that inspections should be given more time before there was any consideration of the use of military force.

As the administration has tried to keep the pressure on Iraq, it often has implied in the past two months that a final deadline was near. Officials suggested Monday that Bush’s rough timetable has always been slightly longer than many diplomats assumed when he announced on Jan. 30 that the issue of how to deal with Saddam would be resolved in “a matter of weeks, not months.”

But this time, the administration appears to have left little room for retreat from a timetable heading toward a final decision in about two weeks. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on Sunday implied that what she called a “diplomatic window” would close following the next council meeting at the end of this month, when members will again hear an assessment of Iraqi cooperation from Blix. She was dismissive of a French suggestion that the council schedule yet another meeting on March 14.

U.S. and British military deployments to the Persian Gulf region will then have reached levels more than adequate for an attack by early to mid-March. Although senior military officials have said that troops could remain in the region for “months” without any action, planners have expressed concern about fighting in the intense heat that falls over the region in early spring.

While the administration has consistently maintained that it does not need another council resolution to launch an attack against Iraq, it has so far bowed to the wishes of Britain and Spain, its two main council allies. Dozens of other countries whose support the administration has claimed also have said they would prefer a U.N. imprimatur on any action.

In addition to a possible final deadline for Iraq, other possibilities for a new resolution include declaring that Iraq already has violated the November council demand that it disarm immediately and completely. The resolution would not spell out any consequences requiring members to agree to military action, but the administration would assert that such approval was implied.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here Bush says flatout that either Saddame will disarm or we will disarm him. That implys that disarmament would have prevented the war. It mentions nothing about Saddam will stop being oppressive or we will remove him.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s757992.htm

Monday, January 6, 2003. Posted: 07:29:06 (AEDT)

Bush expected to make decision on Iraq
United States President George W Bush returns to Washington today, where he is expected to decide on taking military action against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

"He's got to understand, his day of reckoning is coming," Mr Bush warned on Thursday as he invited a small group of reporters to tour his 1,600 acre ranch in Texas.

Mr Bush said he remained unconvinced by Iraqi officials' denials their country possessed banned nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

If Saddam refuses to disarm, he said, "we will lead a coalition to disarm them".

Mr Bush continues to say he has not made the decision to invade Iraq but is leaving nothing to chance.

For months, US troops have been moving into the Gulf region; they now number 65,000.

Reinforcements are soon to bring that number to 90,000, making a war against Iraq appear imminent.

"I would say that at this point we're pretty close to inevitability," US Senator Rick Santorum said.

"I think it becomes more and more likely," US Senator John McCain told CBS's Face the Nation. "We will know in a few weeks."

By that time, United Nations chief weapons inspector Hans Blix is to complete his final report on suspicious Iraqi sites.

He is to deliver it to the UN Security Council by January 27.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet again the call for Disarmament or War

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/world/newsid_2855000/2855545.stm

US President George W Bush said Monday is when the final decision about war on Iraq is made.
He was speaking after meeting the British and Spanish prime ministers Tony Blair and Jose Maria Aznar at an emergency summit in the Azores.

Mr Bush said the world should expect a decision on Monday over whether the crisis can be resolved peacefully or not.

Click here for all our Iraq stories and info
He again demanded that Saddam Hussein gets rid of his weapons immediately.

"The Iraqi regime will disarm itself or the Iraqi regime will be disarmed by force - and the regime has not disarmed itself, " he said.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway in almost every example the main reason for going to war was not Saddam's human right's violations or his oppressive regime, though those reasons did receive some discussion. The main reason was WMD and violation fo UN resolutions.

 

MacBeth:

Just out of curiosity, why are you incapable of accepting that there were multiple reasons/justifications for the war, both before and after the fact? Why is it that you can only accept that there was a single reason (which, regardless of that single reason being discussed at a given time, is always wrong) for going to war? "Well, since the excuse was humanitarian, and it was obviously illogical..." or "Well, since no WMD have been found..." or "Well, since we didn't find Osama sitting inside any of his palaces..." - it is always a single issue with you.

Why are you incapable of understanding that it was the intersection of a number of concerns that prompted our decision to go to war? It is not that difficult a concept to accept.

 

Sapling, the answer to your question is here :

Carry on.

 

There was no debate about Saddam being a genocidal tyrant. Everyone agreed that was true. That's why there was debate about WMD but not about him being a genocidal tyrant. But as you point out, in most every speech etc Bush hit the point home that stopping a genocidal dictator was one of the main justifications for intervention.

I guess I can't really speak to the truth of Rice et al's intent, but it would seem more likely to me that they were using unconfirmed information rather than outright acknowledged fabrication. There is no doubt that they were wrong about the scope at least of Saddam's programs, but I'm not sure that equates to them fabricating lies to decieve the people. As I've said before, intervening for the above reason alone was good enough for me, but to say it was all a hoax to go to war is a bit too conspiratorial. It would be much much more likely that their ideology combined with the intelligence they did have drew the same conclusions for them as it did the public:

Saddam was a confirmed genocidal tyrant. Saddam more than likely was heavily pursuing WMDs. We have many different things that point to this being true. The timeframe for acquiring nukes etc was unknown but could be short. Even if the second is not true now, better to intervene now than confront a nuclear armed Iraq later. Iraqis gain, not lose by removing Saddam.

Its a solid course of action. The public does not expect the government to be perfect. They expect them to make the best possible policy decision at the time, based on what they think about the situation. The public seems satisfied with this course of action.

 

Thanks for not answering my question, MacBeth. Do I need to ask it again? Did you not understand it? No you understood it. You just ducked another one.

No Worries - had you actually read the poll, you would understand that the majority of Americans see that there were multiple reasons for the war. If fact, a question was asked specifically about that aspect. Would you like another link to the poll? I've already posted it twice... Ah, screw it. It's not like you'll actually read it anyway.

 

We answered your question thoroughly. You just failed to understand the answer and proceeded to assume that your question thus went unanswered.