Prewar justifications: bringing democracy to the ME

For my money, you can't go wrong with Bombay Sapphire London Dry Gin. In fact, I keep a bottle in my desk at work, though I have never opened it as I don't keep lemons or limes around the office.

 

Makes the best martinis around!

Bombay Sapphire, straight up, with olives...

yum....

 

While Bush extoled the benefits of democracy, and pointed out that Iraqis weren't free, not once did he mention that lack of freedom as necessitating military invasion by the U.S.

The closest he came to that was in the UN speech you listed. If that was how all the pre-war talk from the administration was that would be one thing. But he was very clear with regards to WMD. The message was show you don't have them and have destroyed them or we invade. The same was never true of requiring Iraqis to show democratic reform or else we invade.

Bush did list the benefits of a free and democratic Iraq, but did not do so in a direct correlation as to that being a reason for military intervention.

 

Great find, basso. I'm glad we have you around to ground the liberals. Many of them actually believe the lies they spew after they've repeated them so many times.

 

WMDs

Where are they texxx?

 

LOL. That was Saddam's duty to report where they went. He couldn't do it. He used them in the past and we have no reason not to believe he wouldn't use them again. We didn't go over there on a hide and go seek mission, as many liberals wanted to believe.

 

Whatever the justification, the war was sold, as much as it was, to the American public, on the belief that there were WMD and that's why we were going over there.

Bringing democracy to the ME was not the reason Americans believed we were going to war, but it certainly can be, in hindsight, a good enough justification, assuming it can be done competently. At least that's my feel....I guess a poll that asked Americans if they thought the basis of the war was WMD or democracy would be useful.

I think Bombay Sapphire is fantastic...hold the olives. Got to try the Brokers I guess. I do like the juniper flavor of gin.

 

Selective quotes are such a wonderful thing!

More quotes from the 2003 State of the Union Address:

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX 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. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them."

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

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

Basso.....do you realize that lying to Congress is a felony?

PS: I hate the taste of gin. Vodka martinis only....Ketel One.

 

No, that's why said it was my feel and that a poll would be useful.

 

I was actually meaning to ask that. The other day I was wondering where all the high-end gins were (or more likely what they were) aside from the big Bombay. I mean I know about Tanqueray and all that stuff but there's got to be a lot of smaller label premium gins out there these days, given the premium vodka rage these days.

 

Let's see the spin on invading Iran. Similar justifications are all there.

 

I posted the full text of this SOTU, I believe, before the month that it was addressed was out. I have since quoted numerous passages from it that PROVES that all the talk was not of WMDs.

Talk about your selective reading.... so have a drink on me!

 

You and Basso are both correct that not all the talk was about WMD's. All of the reasons given for using military force against Iraq was though.

I can sit here, and tell the people of Iran that their enemy is system they live under that oppresses them, and represses them. The day they will be free, is when that system is gone.

I can tell the people in the Darfur region that their govt. is supporting a movement aimed at killing them, and wiping out their population. They won't be free or safe until their own government.

I'm speaking of noble things, but just mentioning it, and talking of changes that need to happen, is not the same as saying Take this action, or our military will come in and take over your country.

That level of rhetoric was only ever reached with regards to WMD's. The freedom stuff, was all talk about noble ideas, and what some of the benefits might be once we got Saddam out, etc. But it was not used as justification for going in.

 

As a liberal, then, may I quote Trudeau, author of that great liberal rag comic, Doonesbury?

Paraphrase: "What a shame the rest of us have to suffer because Dubya never got enough attention from daddy."

Couple that with an intellect that stops at cursory knowledge of the Bible, a heart about the same size as his brain (think: flea's), and the fact that his prime motivators in life are oil industries and getting work for Cheney's Halliburton.....I give you, Dubya's invasion of Iraq.

And oh yeah: terrorists hate freedom, so let's make them love us by blowing up....uh, civilians living in countries they didn't come from in the first place?