Prewar justifications: bringing democracy to the ME

That's what you are saying-- not me.

 

LMAO!!



Keep D&D Civil!!

 

Bringing democracy to the ME was not used as justification for military invasion. The threat of WMD was the selling point.

Back when I supported the war, it was because I held hope for Wolfowitz's domino theory: set up a successful secular democracy that will act as a beacon of hope to other surrounding countries. But even then I knew I was in the minority; the Americans that wanted the war wanted it because of the potential threat of WMDs. In fact I would put freeing the Iraqi people from a murderous madman above promoting ME democracy in the minds of pro war Americans at that time.

Two years ago the justification was pre-emption. Freeing Iraqis was also a good thing to do, but it made up only a small fraction of the overall amount of hot air blown to create justification.

Now that all evidence of WMD and Saddam/Al Qaida link have been blown away, and the democracy bit has been brought to the forefront. This specific point, however, was NOT the justification for military invasion.

 

The freedom gap?

THE FREEDOM GAP?!?!?!?!

That killed anything else that George might have come up with. The "freedom" speech is bad enough ("Why do they hate us? Because they hate freedom" BLARF) but the freedom gap? Wow. And that's "wow" in a bad way.

 

Did you even read the stuff posted? The SOTU preceeded the Operation Iraqi Freedom by 3 months and it is substantially about Iraqi freedom.

 

would that be the same SOTU where he says this?

"U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents."

"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 dominate, intimidate, or attack. "

"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 America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

or this SOTU?

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people."

"The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda."

"The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html

i honestly dont believe that the american public would have supported a war to nation build. at the time of the invasion most americans believed that iraq had something to do w/ 9/11. bush played up the fact that iraq was allied w/ al-queda and posed an immediate threat to america.

thats not to say that the aspect of removing a violent dictator from power wasnt there, but again, the american public would not have supported a war with the primary objective being to bring democracy to iraq.

"You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]

 

I believe it would. I didn't actually go back and check the two.... but my point is to dismantle these ongoing accusations that freedom for the Iraqi people only became a "just cause" when the search for WMDs went south. That's not the case and these addresses prove that out.

No doubt that that kind of rhetoric increased when the search for WMDs became increasingly "frustrating," but the rhetoric of freedom was there all along.

 

Giddy if this is true, can you explain why Powell's speech to the UN was all about WMDs? And nothing about "bring democracy to Iraq"?

Transcript of Powell's U.N. presentation

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.transcript/

 

Because Resolution 1441 was about bringing Iraq into line with regard to suspected WMDs.

 

Now it's "suspected WMDs?"

So you admit that the initial justification for invading Iraq was WMDs?

 

You're just looking for trouble aren't you?

It was only INTELLIGENCE. Hasn't Colin Powell himself apologized and stated his embarassent over his over-statement?

The justification for was was ALWAYS two-pronged: Democratic Reform and WMDs. I've never disavowed the role of the WMD argument, why is your side trying to disavow that the Democratic Reform argument was always there?

 

Giddy, the statements don't prove it out at all.

1.Bush talks about freedom for IRaqis. (that is true)

2.Bush does not talk about freedom for Iraqis justifying a U.S. lead military invasion. He doesn't say that at any point.

3.Bush does talk about Iraq having WMD's(I know that you haven't disagreed this, and I only use it to show a comparison)

4.Bush does talk about WMD's as justifying a U.S. lead military invasion.

 

Oh, really?!

2003 SOTU

"All free nations have a stake in preventing sudden and catastrophic attacks, and we're asking them to join us, and many are doing so.

Yet the course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others.

Whatever action is required, whenever action is necessary, I will defend the freedom and security of the American people. . .

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. 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. . .

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. . .

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. . .


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

Removing a regime for power is not usually initiated by a polite request, is it?

 

using the nice google feature at the bottom of the page i found these if you care to read...

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/nation/6087005.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

june 03 - 1/3 of the american public believes we found WMD's in iraq.

before the war, 1/2 of americans believed that iraqis were among the 19 hijackers (none were iraqis, but 15 were saudis, who happen to be our pals over there).

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

as late as september 03, 70% of americans still believed that saddam was involved with 9/11!

"President Bush and members of his administration suggested a link between the two in the months before the war in Iraq. Claims of possible links have never been proven, however."

"Veteran pollsters say the persistent belief of a link between the attacks and Saddam could help explain why public support for the decision to go to war in Iraq has been so resilient despite problems establishing a peaceful country."

and just to be "fair and balanced" ill put in this link from fox news from march 2003.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81023,00.html

"A FOX News poll conducted this week finds 71 percent of Americans support using U.S. forces to disarm Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and 20 percent oppose. Support has been at about the same level for the last eight weeks."

"Preventing Saddam from aiding terrorists is seen by a plurality as the most important reason to take military action. By a three-to-one margin Americans say the top reason for action is to keep Iraq from supplying weapons to terrorists, with 14 percent say the most important reason is to promote democracy and human rights and 10 percent say to secure oil supplies. Twenty percent say it is a combination of these."
____________________________________________________

by 3:1, the american public's top reason for invasion was to disarm and keep saddam from helping terrorists. only 14% say promoting democracy is the most important reason. so again, clearly the main objective was not to bring democracy, but to protect ourselves. the american public would never have supported a war to nation build. invading iraq was about protecting ourselves from future attacks.

it seems that what we had leading up to and in the early days of the iraq war was a VERY uneducated public, which actually worked pretty good for dubbya as far as getting the voters on the war-wagon. its actually pretty shocking for me to read all the polls taken in 2003 and see how generally uninformed the country was.

the rhetoric of freedom was there, but so was lots of other stuff. when the other stuff didnt pan out, it became about freedom. "see, this is what we wanted all along." that is PART of how the war was sold, but the main thing was the perceived threat that iraq posed to america. bush said saddam had WMD's and he was going to use them on us the first chance he got. that is why we went in there. freeing the iraqi people is a convenient by-product of the invasion, but not the primary reason we went in.

freedom was/is a just and noble cause, but if that was our primary objective we would have never entertained the notion of going in there in the first place. sorry, but its not worth it. the hundreds of billions we are wasting there could be put to much better use here at home (especially in light of all the tax cuts, which seem very irresponsible in a time of war). all the troops we have sent over there might have been able to assist in the capture of bin laden, who bush doenst really seem to pay much attention to these days (why is that?). the troops could be patrolling our borders and making sure terrorists dont sneak in here. we wouldnt be sending our reserves back to iraq even after they have done their time.

bush convinced the american public to back his iraq war by scaring us into believing that iraq posed an immediate threat to our security. saddam had WMD's and he was going to use them on us as soon as he could. he was allied with al-queda and iraq was a haven for terrorists (if it wasnt than, it is now).

 

the aspect of democratic reform was there, but the reason we invaded was the WMD's. we would have never supported going in there if it was just about spreading democracy. in my previous post i cited a fox news poll (fair and balanced) where by a 3:1 majority invading iraq was about disarming saddam and keeping him from getting WMD's to terrorists. only 14% of americans supported the war on grounds of spreading democracy.

 

No doubt the Bush Administration leaned on evidence that was less than accurate. It was only intelligence-- much of it conflicting I'm sure.

Blame the media and the people themselves not the Bush Administration for the confusion of the American public about the causes and events of 9/11.

Bush made the argument about how someone like Saddam could assist a terrorist action against the US and that was hard to argue with. Any of the scenarios he rehearsed could come true quite easily.

As I said before, the WMD argument is immediately a threat to the US while democratic reform is more part of a long-term project for peace in the middle east.

It's only natural to harken to the more immediate danger to justify the course of action you choose-- especially when it comes with a cost of American lives. Bush didn't dodge the reality of that. He addressed it in the 2003 SOTU. Seems like some critics around here think the administration treat the war as some kind of staged hunt. I find that too cynical to bear.

 

i guess the ill blame the american people for believing their president when he tells us that we must go to war with a country b/c they are an immediate threat to our safety.

its our fault for trusting our president when he tells us something.

where did all the confusion about the war come from?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

"Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero."

 

Are you accusing the administration of falsely invoking Saddam between 9/11/2001 and 1/21/2003 (SOTU) or only from 1/21/2003 forward?

The events of 9/11 are unprecedented in American history-- never on our soil and certainly never in our most major city. President Bush's administration was to be held responsible by history for whatever happened to us after 9/12/2001. What would you have done-- not from the comfort of your lounge chair and keyboard?

Did anyone in President Bush's administartion ever say that most or even any of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi?

 

These quotes can be broken up into a few categories. Not one of them is suggesting using a U.S. military invasion to bring about a democratic Iraq.

1. The first group of quotes talks about the freedom of the U.S. and its allies. It doesn't talk about the freedom of Iraqis

2. The second group deals WMD's again. Bush even tries to bring up 9/11 with this. He mentions 9/11 and bio/chem/wmd type weapons. Of course even when Saddam had those types of weapons, he had zero history of trading them with any terrorist groups.

3. He told the Iraqis they would be free when Iraq had a regime change. Contrary to your comment about a polite request and regime change, the U.S. does have a history of official policy towards nations being regime change, and military action wasn't the course the U.S. set about in trying to bring around regime change.

I mention Cuba as an example. Our country has had an official ongoing policy of regime change towards Cuba, and we haven't thought that it meant we needed to invade Cuba with the U.S. military. There are other methods of carrying out regime change, and unless people aren't capable of deeper thought, there are more options than 'military force,' or 'a polite request.'

Again there isn't one place in that SOTU where Bush suggests we should send in American troops and lives to bring about Iraqi freedom.

 

Yes I am blaming the Bush administration. While they didn't say that any of the hijackers were from Iraq, they made concerted effort to repeatedly and often mention the events of 9/11 and Iraq together.

In the quotes you provided from the SOTU, Bush even talked about specifically about hijackers, and WMD's and why we needed to stop Saddam.

Of course Cheney for a long time was trying to link the two together long after we established there was no link