Seven Simple Questions For Those Who Supported The War.

Oh, Viceroy of Verbosity, you ask for substance and look who shows up! LOL...


Question One: If the reason for the war, as advocated to the world at large and the American people wasn't WMD alone, why did Bush repeatedly state that Iraq could avoid war by disarming?

That was the primary thing that threatened externally.


Question Two: If the liberation of the Iraqi people was in itself sufficient justification for the war, why were the American people and the world at large not told this before the war? In fact, why were we told the reverse, as Wolfowitz stated in his interview with Vanity Fair "... there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two...The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. ?

Wasn't that interview with Wolfowitz conducted after the war? If you look at the SOTU2003, you will actually see how little the WMD issue prevailed over other aspects.

Question Three: If the administration is claiming that their belief that war was necessary based on the intel about Al Queda links with Iraq and the danger Iraq's WMD/nukes posed to America and Iraq's neighbours, why does the recently released NIE report reveal that the intel community repeatedly told the White House the exact opposite, that there was no link between Iraq and Al Queda, and that there was nothing to suggest that Iraq was any kind of threat to any other nation including the U.S?

This is a good question-- must be conflicting reports. When that happens you choose your side.

Question Four: If our intel was saying no WMD, 9-11 connections, and we stated that freedom of the people was not sufficient ( as we are now saying about Liberia) cause to send in a major military force...what, then, made war with Iraq so necessary? What is it about Iraq that seperated it from, say, Liberia?

Middle East geography.


Question Five: If before the war there were numerous resignations and public statements from top intel and diplomatic officials vehemently criticizing the administration for seeking intel that supported it's argument rather than objective intelligence, and the released reports confirm that the intel which undermied the war position was made available to the administration, how can we buy the present argument that the White House was merely victims of being given incorrect intel?

Numerous? Vehement? A few out of hundreds. No intel is objective.

Question Six: If, as stated, the war was about the imminent threat of Iraqi WMD, including 'reconstituted nukes', and/or 'nuclear weapons programs weeks away from yielding active weapons', and 'hundreds of thousands of gallons of chemical gas'...at what point in the process of non-discovery will war supporters admit that the war was not justified as advertised?

Did you see the photo going around about the Russian MIG found buried in a sand dune. Pretty incredible. How many dunes in Iraq?

Question Seven: If the declared war on terrorism was the priority it was said to be after 9-11, when and why did the focus shift to war with Iraq to the point where we diverted funding, intelligence resources, and personel away from pursuing Al Queada and into Iraq, especially given that our own intel said that Iraq was largely irrelevent to the war on terror?

Base of operations, methinks. Big picture.

 

The scary thing is you can hammer this over people's heads until it's bleeding, but you will not change people's minds about this. That's why Bush still enjoys tremendous success, because he has found the elixir of political success.

Create fear.
Blame others.
Wrap self in flag and constitution.
Rinse and repeat.

 

Question One: If the reason for the war, as advocated to the world at large and the American people wasn't WMD alone, why did Bush repeatedly state that Iraq could avoid war by disarming?

Well, it could have been avoided by disarming, but disarming would also more than likely represent a fundamental change in the attitude of Saddam Hussein who has never showed any real progress towards disarming. I don't exactly know what you are looking for, but if he disarmed then he wouldn't be a threat. The reason why those other reasons were thrown out there (I am guessing like the fact that he is a murderer and bad guy and such) were political to help garner support for an attack since it seemed to be lacking in other nations. People seemed more content to continue on with the charade of weapons inspections. I believe that the bad guy aspect of Saddam was put out so people would also see that this guy is horrible and maybe make them realize that he would never be forthcoming on the inspections and that he was a major threat if left in power, to his people and everyone else. Someone who has no conscience with his own citizens would also more than likely have no conscience with other people.

Question Two: If the liberation of the Iraqi people was in itself sufficient justification for the war, why were the American people and the world at large not told this before the war? In fact, why were we told the reverse, as Wolfowitz stated in his interview with Vanity Fair "... there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two...The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. ?

I don't think liberation of the Iraqi people was enough justification for war in the eyes of America and the government. While I wish it were and I wish it were that easy, liberation and the human and economic costs that go along with it simply is not enough to justify American involvement. If that were true then I think we would have tried to "liberate" many other places. We were told in reverse because it is better PR. Also, I guess we were told in reverse in your eyes because the discoveries of mass graves and abuses have been more numerous than the discoveries of WMD evidence which is still a big mystery. I do think it will be uncovered since there are so many places to hide things there. I do like how we found like 30 fighter planes covered up in the sand...lol...great idea Iraqi air force. But that being discovered so long after major combat goes to show that there are many places that we don't even think of where WMD evidence could be hidden.

Question Three: If the administration is claiming that their belief that war was necessary based on the intel about Al Queda links with Iraq and the danger Iraq's WMD/nukes posed to America and Iraq's neighbours, why does the recently released NIE report reveal that the intel community repeatedly told the White House the exact opposite, that there was no link between Iraq and Al Queda, and that there was nothing to suggest that Iraq was any kind of threat to any other nation including the U.S?

Hey you got me there. We really don't know everything they know. I highly doubt they have declassified all the documents they have on Iraqi/Al-Queda links. Quite frankly I haven't been keeping up with things as much because I am sick of all the BS and incorrect predictions of what is going to happen. But didn't we find out that the connections between Al-Queda and Saddam were stronger than we thought. Maybe the administration knew something that wasn't widely known. Also, if Iraq supported Al-Queda and it was known then they would be a threat to the US.

Question Four: If our intel was saying no WMD, 9-11 connections, and we stated that freedom of the people was not sufficient ( as we are now saying about Liberia) cause to send in a major military force...what, then, made war with Iraq so necessary? What is it about Iraq that seperated it from, say, Liberia?

I don't remember if I already kind of answered this, but I think it was a combination of things. Saddam was a known rogue dictator who was hell bent on military power. That combined with his complete non-cooperation with the weapons inspections and treaty violations did not help things. There was also a worldwide concensus that the was in possession of chemical and biological weapons and that he was hiding them. The administration felt he had connections to Al-Queda as well. His non-cooperation combined with his hatred of the US combined with treaty violations combined with worldwide sentiment that he had WMDs combined with the administrations feeling that he was connected to Al-Queda combined with 9/11 and with the kicker of his horrible human rights abuses are what made the attack necessary.

Liberia is completely different because it is a civil war. Civil wars are very messy things to get involved in.

Question Five: If before the war there were numerous resignations and public statements from top intel and diplomatic officials vehemently criticizing the administration for seeking intel that supported it's argument rather than objective intelligence, and the released reports confirm that the intel which undermied the war position was made available to the administration, how can we buy the present argument that the White House was merely victims of being given incorrect intel?

I do think the administration tried to bolster its position rather than be objective. I don't think it was right, but at the same time I still think it was a war that needed to be fought. I think the administration suffered from caring about too much what world opinion thought and getting support from places where they were not going to get it from. If we would have presented what we knew rather than tried to make it sound much worse then I don't think it would have mattered. If we would have said we were simply removing Saddam from power because of his repeated violations of weapons inspections and non-cooperation and ties to Al-Queda then I think we would have been fine. The people who didn't want us to invade were not going to change their opinions no matter what. The people who wanted to invade were only more justified by what Bush said, but if he had not said it then they still would have wanted to take Saddam out. I think Bush suffered trying to convince people who would not be convinced. Hope that made some sense.

Question Six: If, as stated, the war was about the imminent threat of Iraqi WMD, including 'reconstituted nukes', and/or 'nuclear weapons programs weeks away from yielding active weapons', and 'hundreds of thousands of gallons of chemical gas'...at what point in the process of non-discovery will war supporters admit that the war was not justified as advertised?

As I said above I think there will be discoveries of the chem and bio weapons programs. There are so many places to hide things and thats all that Saddam ever did was hide things. They hid 30 freaking jets in the sand and it wasn't discovered until a couple weeks ago. I don't think everything will come out until he is dead. I will answer that question again a few months after we get Saddam.

Question Seven: If the declared war on terrorism was the priority it was said to be after 9-11, when and why did the focus shift to war with Iraq to the point where we diverted funding, intelligence resources, and personel away from pursuing Al Queada and into Iraq, especially given that our own intel said that Iraq was largely irrelevent to the war on terror?

I don't know and it pisses me off. I wish we would have taken care of Afghanistan better first and then taken a long hard look at the Iraqi situation. The war needed to be fought and I do think Saddam would have taken any chance to aid terrorists who wanted to attack the US. I mean we have never heard any charges of Saddam flat out denying to aid terrorists or telling them to get out of his country. We only had limited evidence that showed he supported them. Well we know he supported the Palestinian suicide bombers. Anyhow...Saddam is probably also the biggest enemy of the US and he had massive amounts of unaccounted chem and bio weapons as was acknowledged by the world community. The administration probably felt that Saddam would be the most likely candidate to supply chem, bio, or nuke weapons to terrorists. I wish we were still pursuing Al-Queda and fighting as hard in Afghanistan, but Iraq needed to be taken care of.

I hope that answers your questions....here is one for you MacBeth...how the hell do you find the time to do all this stuff? I mean geez I think this took me at least 40 minutes to think out my answers it seems like you'd be able to do something like this in 10 minutes if even that long. I feel like my mind is a tortise compared to your Porsche.

 

Question Four: If our intel was saying no WMD, 9-11 connections, and we stated that freedom of the people was not sufficient ( as we are now saying about Liberia) cause to send in a major military force...what, then, made war with Iraq so necessary? What is it about Iraq that seperated it from, say, Liberia?



Answer: OIL

 

I continue to be amazed at the handful of people in this country who think that our freedom comes without a cost. I am further amazed that there are actually people who allege to believe that because other countries were willing to stand idly by during Operation Iraqi Freedom (while simultaneously rendering the almighty UN impotent and irrelevant), that somehow makes the US misled or misguided in its attempts to bring peace and freedom to not just its own people but others under the wrath of a ruthless, murdering tyrant.

I also wonder why CBSCNNABCNBC have not broadcast this statistic: 66 Washington DC citizens have been murdered since May 1, compared to 52 US soliders in Iraq. Where is the quagmire now?

It is not GWB's fault, nor is it the US's fault, that democracy and freedom have not materialized quicker in Iraq. It is the fault of those who failed to stand on the side of freedom, both here and internationally.

 

answer the questions

 

I won't answer each question in turn but I will provide the obvious explanation which answers them all.

IMO, the answer is that the administration wanted to remake the Middle East due to various geo-political and geo-strategic reasons. The situation in Iraq made an invasion and occupation of Iraq possible because there was enough pretense avaliable to justify such an action. The US could claim Iraq was in violation of UN resolutions, Saddam as a tyrant, Saddam wasn't cooperating enough with inspectors, he helped Al-Queda in the 09-11 attacks, etc.

It didn't matter whether these pretenses were credible or not. The administration had decided, a priori, that invasion and occupation of Iraq would serve US interests and then sought as many justifications as possible afterwards to sell the war.

Of course I'm not pointing out anything that isn't already obvious to most of us. And war supporters should just admit that this is in fact what happenend.

 

There is obviously a delicate tension between "open government" and "protecting sensitive national security interests". I choose to believe that the more that our intelligence and military leaders are allowed to do their jobs without being quizzed incessantly, the more effective they will be able to perform. I think anyone who complains about the imposing nature of the "Patriot Act" but fails to wholeheartedly support our actions in liberating the Iraqi people is a spoiled-rotten hypocrite. You people want it both ways, and it simply can't always be had.

This issue is one of greater weight than your 7 pinpointed questions suggests. Of course you can pick and choose all the minor inconsistencies you like, and I believe that you are doing so because you hate GWB and you hate the conservative majority in this country. I am of the belief that GWB is an incredibly honest and determined leader of our nation. I want answers, too. But I was listening when we were told repeatedly for months upon end that this war was not one that would resolve itself overnight. All you armchair-executives out there who think you can do a better job should get out and run for office yourselves. You are playing with a half-a-deck - telling everyone why you're right and they're wrong, when you can't possibly know enough to make the right decision. Why do you insist on ignoring those experts who have testified to Congress in closed meetings who indicate that all the proof is there, but that the clamoring liberal hatefest is not going to change the fact that some things take time and need to go undisclosed until greater gains are made.

 

So did you expect the Bush administration to come out in advance of the war and precisely label each and every directive that they intended to achieve? How precise could they possibly be when they're dealing with a notoriously elusive violator of numerous UN resolutions who never gives a straight answer to anything? Their problem may be that there were so many good reasons to invade Iraq that they glossed over all of them, leaving the opportunity open for critics to come back and nitpick 16 word phrases and questionable intelligence weeks after the major combat ended. The problem I see is that our nation may soon be paralyzed by the political rhetoric that plagues every facet of government from local to state to Washington.

 

Who is not better off today, aside from obviously the 200 or so fallen soldiers and their families? As a whole, the Middle East necessarily must be more stable with Hussein, Inc. out of power. Terrorists have one less nation's desert in which to hide out and train. The Iraqi people can speak and live under some semblance of free will, without fear of their families being raped and murdered. Where exactly is the problem? I realize that the political prelude to the war was not perfect, but when in the history of the world was it perfect? If perfection will be required for our nation to defend itself, then we will not be free much longer.

 

I guess you and other war supporters don't care whether a govt lies and manipulates facts or not as long as the end result appears to be sufficiently good to justify lies, deceptions and manipulations. But I and others very much do care.

Remember the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution in which the US claimed North Vietnam attacked US ships unprovoked and the Johnson regime then used that as pretext to "retaliate" and expand the war against North Vietnam? Well we now know that this was a blantant lie and fabrication. One could of course argue that it doesn't matter that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was fabricated because there was a "bigger picture".

But the point FOR ME is that a democratic govt being as truthful as possible to its own people and not to deceive its own people is ITSELF part of the "big picture".