Seven Simple Questions For Those Who Supported The War.

Batman, I think Deuce made it clear from just about his first post that he approves if Bush lied or said whatever needed about such issues as wmd or Iraq- Al Qaeda ties so that we could occupy Iraq to pressure the whole Arab World. All seven questions are irrelevant semantics to him.

He believes that so fervently because when he was younger, he talked to some religious Saudis, who hate the US and say they want the whole world to be Muslim. Apparently they learned this in a Mosque. This seems to have been very personally traumatic to him.

To him this danger of these Saudis and other Arabs is on par with WW II. and Hitler. To his way of thinking you don't hesitate to lie to the ignorant majority of Americans, if needed, to save the country from this immediate Hitlerian danger. An operation like the Phoenix Program in Vietnam in which the US literally asassinated 1000's of supposed Viet cOng sympathizers would probably be ok for Deuce if directed toward this type of Arabs.

Unfortunately all indications are that despite their covering pr that Deuce's position regarding the necessity of the truth and the informed will of the American people is closer to the positons of Bush, Rumsfeld and the gang than is commonly portrayed.

With the recent statements of Wolfowitz first that the wmd thing was just a "bureauratic convenience" and recently that he never saw any clear link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, we might find that the Bush administration is testing to see if there are enough ditto heads out there to come clean and just say we just said it to protect you all even if it wasn't really true.

The slow water torture of having mistatement after mistatement of Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney et al. belatedly nailed down by the mainstream media has to be grating on them.

 

Does anybody offer an ounce of support to my observation that the Democrats have succeeded in elaborating this WMD issue as the primary justification for this war.

That was not really Bush's message in the SOTU2003. Somehow the topic of WMDs became the end-all and be-all of this regime change, whereas in January 2003 it was a more well-rounded intent. I think the Dems moved the line an inch a day and effectively may have entrapped this administration.

 

giddyup, no offense, but you keep citing the SOTU against all other evidence to prove that WMD's were not the primary justification for war, and that just isn't true.

MacBeth makes it very clear when he reminds us that Bush offered to call off the war if WMD's were dealt with to his liking. That is proof positive (as if we even needed it, given the tenor of every single speech or official communication out of the White House regarding the reasons for war) that they were the primary motivation for war. You can count words in the SOTU all you like to try and prove otherwise, but Bush did not say if Saddam started treating his people better we would call off the war -- there are many bad dictators in the world and liberation, in itself, is not a US interest. You accuse the Democrats of spin, but you are the one spinning when you say that since Bush talked more about Saddam's crimes against his people in one speech, those crimes were the primary motivator for war. They weren't and even Bush (even now) would not try to make the case that they were.

Bush repeatedly made the case for a clear, present danger from Iraq. He did it in several ways, accusing them of an active nuclear program as well as an active WMD program and also accusing them of links to terrorists, including Al Qaeda. To suggest that dealing with this alleged threat was a mere bonus, while liberation was the primary motivator is revisionist history at its finest. You also like to cite the colorful brand name of the operation (Iraqi Freedom or Liberation or whatever) as proof this was our main motivation, but no person involved (including the administration, the UN or any of the media covering this) would agree with you. The case Bush made to Congress, the American people and the UN relied primarily on the clear and present danger Saddam allegedly posed to the United States and its allies. Liberation was the bonus, not vice versa.

As a side note, I would have supported WWII simply on humanitarian grounds and I probably would have supported regime change in Iraq on the same grounds. The American people were not asked to support either war on those grounds -- in both cases, removing a heinous dictator was a bonus. America is not in the liberation business except where our interests are directly threatened. And Bush was very clear in his position on this during the presidential election when he said we were not and should not be the world's police and that we ought to employ a more 'humble' approach to foreign affairs than Clinton did in Bosnia or Somalia. You can argue that many things have changed since 9/11, but none of them have to do with the US position regarding liberation or democratization of sovereign nations where there is no clear threat to our interests.

 

One final thing on the SOTU:

While I'd been convinced for some time of Saddam's brutality toward his people, what shook me in Bush's speech was his list of weapons and the damage they could do. Regardless of the number of words spent on WMD's versus Saddam's brutality, I would be amazed if anyone walked away from that speech thinking that the WMD stuff wasn't the strongest stuff in the speech. I was adamantly opposed to the war, on the grounds that I did not believe Iraq was an imminent threat, but I said all along (on this board and elsewhere) that if an imminent threat or a connection to 9/11 could be proved I would be right behind the war. The SOTU section on WMD's scared the hell out of me (and, I'd venture, many other Americans) and it was after that speech that the tide turned with regard to American support for the war.

Since when did we not know all that stuff about the oppression of the Iraqi people? We've known it since before the first Gulf War. That was not the fresh or most impactful section of the speech. It was gravy -- regardless of the word count. People didn't change their minds re: support for the war because they were reminded of things they already knew. They changed their minds because they got the crap scared out of them. I didn't change my mind, because I didn't believe the hype. More and more, it looks like I was right not to.

 

Speaking for myself, what really spooked me was how close Saddam came to building a nuclear bomb during the first Persian Gulf War and how badly our intel underestimated him.

 

BJ: My take on all this is vastly different from yours: after 9/11, we were just simply fed up. No more. War on Terrorism. Start with your most easily identifiable target: The Taliban. Then make a move toward stabilizing the Middle East-- democratize Iraq.

Bush's offer to Saddam was nothing more than the highest demand of the UN: show us your WMDs and lets dispose of them or fully account for them. It was a reiteration of a 10 year-old demand. WMDs (primarily biological or chemical) were the focus but that is all.

My point is that Bush did not make nuclear WMDs the central focus of the SOTU, yet that is all people want to talk about... and people somehow seem to (erroneously) remember that speech for that quality... which barely exists. How did that happen?

Your bent on making this a personal matter for Bush ("Bush offered to call off the war if WMD's were dealt with to his liking") rather than falling in line with the UN Resolution which the UN had ineffectively enforced for a decade reveals your agenda.

Your mind is no doubt prodigous but I doubt you can recall the "the tenor of every single speech or official communication out of the White House regarding the reasons for war."

My point, again, with rallying to the SOTU is that this is where it started. Yes, the argument changed... but how and why?

You write: "You accuse the Democrats of spin, but you are the one spinning when you say that since Bush talked more about Saddam's crimes against his people in one speech, those crimes were the primary motivator for war. They weren't and even Bush (even now) would not try to make the case that they were."

Who's spinning? I counted the words and read at the speech. Of course, he wouldn't backtrack now because the Dems have succeeded in painting him into a corner. The focus of the conversation has been shifted. In the speech, he never identifies the US as imminently threatened by Saddams' nuclear WMD program. The scenario he talks about is what chem/bio agent might be in the carry-on luggage of the next terrorist.

You wrote: "Since when did we not know all that stuff about the oppression of the Iraqi people?"

Aren't you one of the ones who is always reminding us about how quickly the American people forget? How little they care about Iraqis or Afghanis et al?

 

The SOTU2003 when it picks up with Saddam Hussein:

"Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction.

For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country.

Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons: not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations and for the opinion of the world.

The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming.

<B>It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.</b>

The <B>United Nations concluded</B> in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of <B>anthrax</B>; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The <B>United Nations concluded</B> that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of <B>botulinum</B> toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

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

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

<b>The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. </b>

<B>|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||The Words so Controversial |||||||||||||

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

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| End ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||</b>

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

Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

<B>The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving.</B>

From intelligence sources, we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work <b>hiding</b> documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, <b>sanitizing</b> inspection sites and <B>monitoring</b> the inspectors themselves.

Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to <B>intimidate</B> witnesses. Iraq is <B>blocking</B> U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations.

Iraqi intelligence officers are <B>posing</b> as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been <b>coached</b> by Iraqi officials on what to say.

Intelligence sources indicate that <b>Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families</b>.

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 <b>dominate, intimidate or attack</b>.

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

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. <B>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.</b>

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

<B>||||||||||||||||||||||| Is this where he says the threat is imminent?! |||||||||||||||||||

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| end ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||</b>

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured.

Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.

If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.

<b>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.

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country and our friends and our allies. </b>

The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: <b>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. </b>

Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American armed forces. Many of you are assembling in or near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay ahead.

In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America and America believes in you.

Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a president can make. The technologies of war have changed. The risks and suffering of war have not.

For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow.

This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost, and we dread the days of mourning that always come.

We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all.

If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means, sparing, in every way we can, the innocent.

And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military, and we will prevail.

And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies and freedom.

Many challenges, abroad and at home, have arrived in a single season. In two years, America has gone from a sense of invulnerability to an awareness of peril, from bitter division in small matters to calm unity in great causes.

And we go forward with confidence, because this call of history has come to the right country.

Americans are a resolute people, who have risen to every test of our time. Adversity has revealed the character of our country, to the world, and to ourselves.

<b>America is a strong nation and honorable in the use of our strength. We exercise power without conquest, and we sacrifice for the liberty of strangers.

Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to humanity.</b>

We Americans have faith in ourselves, but not in ourselves alone. We do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving god behind all of life and all of history.

May he guide us now, and may God continue to bless the United States of America.

Thank you.

 

I was thinking about this issue. The key is how many people really care about these 7 question issues and the deceptions of Bush. Deuce and Giddyup don't for very similar reasons.

My take on all this is vastly different from yours: after 9/11, we were just simply fed up. No more. War on Terrorism. Start with your most easily identifiable target: The Taliban. Then make a move toward stabilizing the Middle East-- democratize Iraq.
Giddyup

This is as close as Giddyup comes to saying "screw the 7 question type issues", like Deuce.

Now Giddyup is saying it wasn't mainly wmd, which is largely the Bush line now. It is unfair spin to say it was.

It is a good tactic to try to focus on the SOTU only if trying to make the case which Giddyup does at times that it was a good deal about Iraqi Liberation. As I recall the Iraqi Liberation bit was the last of several reason employed. I think it was used in a last gasp to try to convince the Europeans and the doubters at home and to try to put a positve spin on things, since they were going to start the war with or against international law.

Giddup is close to the current Bush spin. It is all part of the war on terror (who can be against that). A few days ago when Bush said he was saddened by the loss of some additional troops and praised their sacrifice because they "are protecting the United States", he was getting into a more and more general theme even less specific than "war on terror". No more talking of wmd or Iraq-Al Qaeda links, which are dangerous to spin since these are more specific and could, though it is hard to prove a negative, be pretty much disproved.

Giddyup, fortunately we don't have to rely on Batman's prodigious memory. Here is a link to the full text of most of Bush's speeches on the issue.


Bush's speeches

 

Here's Bush major speech on October, 2001 before the SOTU. You can clearly see that Iraqi liberationis an after thought, tacked on at the end.
*********
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thank you for that very gracious and warm Cincinnati welcome. I'm honored to be here tonight; I appreciate you all coming.

Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it?

Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action -- why be concerned now; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror. These are all issues we've discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.

First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world.

Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.

And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.

Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both. And the United States military is capable of confronting both.

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the regime has been much closer -- the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril."

Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.

Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure. Yet this is precisely what the world has tried to do since 1991. The U.N. inspections program was met with systematic deception. The Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next; they forged documents, destroyed evidence, and developed mobile weapons facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors. Eight so-called presidential palaces were declared off-limits to unfettered inspections. These sites actually encompass twelve square miles, with hundreds of structures, both above and below the ground, where sensitive materials could be hidden.
"
The world has also tried economic sanctions -- and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.

The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities -- only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist.

The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people -- and in the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times.

After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.

Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. Among those requirements: the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under U.N. supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction. To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside the country -- and these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them so they all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder. And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.

The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

Many nations are joining us in insisting that Saddam Hussein's regime be held accountable. They are committed to defending the international security that protects the lives of both our citizens and theirs. And that's why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council seriously.

And these resolutions are clear. In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism. It must cease the persecution of its civilian population. It must stop all illicit trade outside the Oil For Food program. It must release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including an American pilot, whose fate is still unknown.

By taking these steps, and by only taking these steps, the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict. Taking these steps would also change the nature of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime will make that choice. Unfortunately, at least so far, we have little reason to expect it. And that's why two administrations -- mine and President Clinton's -- have stated that regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our nation.

I hope this will not require military action, but it may. And military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures. If Saddam Hussein orders such measures, his generals would be well advised to refuse those orders. If they do not refuse, they must understand that all war criminals will be pursued and punished. If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully; we will act with the full power of the United States military; we will act with allies at our side, and we will prevail. (Applause.)

There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait -- and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence. As Americans, we want peace -- we work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein.

Failure to act would embolden other tyrants, allow terrorists access to new weapons and new resources, and make blackmail a permanent feature of world events. The United Nations would betray the purpose of its founding, and prove irrelevant to the problems of our time. And through its inaction, the United States would resign itself to a future of fear.

That is not the America I know. That is not the America I serve. We refuse to live in fear. (Applause.) This nation, in world war and in Cold War, has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history's course. Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom, and help others to find freedom of their own.

Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq. The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban. The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family.

On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.

America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.

Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors.

Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.

Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote. I'm confident they will fully consider the facts, and their duties.

The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities.

We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept it. Like other generations of Americans, we will meet the responsibility of defending human liberty against violence and aggression. By our resolve, we will give strength to others. By our courage, we will give hope to others. And by our actions, we will secure the peace, and lead the world to a better day.

 

1. I think there's no doubt that the bunglers in the Administration have made so many mistakes (including likely lying) that one cannot really defend their actions. I had a lot of problems with this myself initially when I found myself defending Bush despite my opinion of him, before I realized it wasn't really necessary.

2. I think there is no doubt the intervention in Iraq was justified, and that we are all better off for it.

3. I would like to reverse one question though. If intervention in Iraq was really because of (insert: oil, Jr hated Saddam because he tried to kill Sr, to protect Israel) then why did they say if Iraq disarmed there would be no intervention?

 

I would like to reverse one question though. If intervention in Iraq was really because of (insert: oil, Jr hated Saddam because he tried to kill Sr, to protect Israel) then why did they say if Iraq disarmed there would be no intervention?

This is typical of the prowarriors. First Hayes has the bland the world is better off rationale, then it is the above quoted little question where it is all back to wmd and immediate threat.

To answer your question. Bush's statement was rhetorical. Everyone knew they were going to invade anyway. Sadam said it; as hundreds of thousands of troops and billions were spent, everyone who wasn't a true believer knew it.

I think the most recent news is that the war had already started, before the official announcement, with special ops and bombing of military targets etc. when these type of statements were being made.

Count Hayes as a somewhat reluctant member of the "who cares if he lied?" camp.

 

So what would have happened if Saddam actually did disarm? What would Bush have said? I don't expect a really reasonable response other than "he would just lie again" but realistically I don't see how he could have gone back on his statement.

 

delete

 

Not sidestepping the point at all. I am merely stating that the intervention was justified (as in a 'just action'), not that it was justified to the public correctly. You assume that it was unjust because it was incorrectly justified beforehand, which I do not.

Actually, we have argued over this so many times that I am suprised that you would argue I am merely justifying it 'after the fact.' I have always maintained that intervention was justified in and of itself because of Saddam's despotism and resulting genocide. It was ALSO justified by our suspicions of WMD, which you shared unless I am mistaken. That one is so far unproven does not affect the other.

Stopping genocide will stand the test of time. Administration bungling does not change this.

Uh, I think you're missing the point here. We believed Saddam had WMDs because he refused to allow unbridled inspection. Even Saddam's own people are now saying he didn't open up because he didn't want us to know for sure. It was illogical for him to play brinksmanship games when facing invasion. That was the most convincing point for me before the war. Really the point of reversing the question, however, is that it is just as telling that we committed to non-intervention if he opened up. That means it the intervention (when looking at the Administration's motivation) was not to stop genocide, but also means it was not to occupy Iraq and steal their oil, or to avenge Saddam's assassination attempt, or any of the other conspiracy theories coming out of the anti-war camp.

We may or may not be disagreeing here I guess. If your point is to castigate the administration on their justification of the war, I have no argument for that. If your point is to say the war itself was unjustified, then we are disagreeing. For you, one seems to lead to the next, and I don't think that is true.

 

So what would have happened if Saddam actually did disarm? What would Bush have said?

I don't expect a really reasonable response other than "he would just lie again"

Good premptive thrust. Hey just because you call a liar a liar doesn't make you unreasonable.

You got it Bush would have claimed he hadn't destroyed them.

Same stuff he actually claimed.

1) Un inspectors don't know squat.

2) Still buying yellow cake from Niger.

3) Demand that all Iraqi scientist leave Iraq for questioning.

4) Hide the 911 investigation results.

5) Misrepresent aluminum tubes, gliders, baloon blowing machines,

6) Hide the conclusions of Sadam's defecting son-in-law that the weapons had been destroyed. Impy he said the opposite.


Hey, Mr. Clutch, just admit Bush cooked the books and at the minimum reached a erroneous conclusion due to such dishonesty. but you don't really care.

 

I have already stated that I think Bush probably lied on some points.

But when he states that he will not invade Iraq if Saddam destroys the weapons, then that is something that is hard to get out of. I know you can't look at this honestly and say "Maybe Bush really was tieing himself down with that statement" but I think that is the truth. Bush misrepresentations had to do with WMDs, about which we didn't find out for several months (and we still haven't found out for sure). But if Saddam had destroyed his weapons, we would have found out right away and Bush would have been politically stuck.

 

Ok, I'm not really up on "current events", or what report said what about what... so take this for what its worth, a hopefully objective look at the war, Hey I don't even have a TV....so I won't even begin to comment on the infamous 7 questions....

I don't like to read posts by people claiming that the war was for oil, or that Bush is really just trying to colonize the world into America... because you know what, that sort of thing is just fanatical....

I remember after 9/11, Bush made a very strong statement to hold responsible those nations that were harboring or helping terrorists knowingly.... In my mind, since this statement was made, it should be a simple justification (whether you agree with it or not) for the war...

I am confused as to why we ever needed another reason beyond that...

9-11 is a reality that often gets trounced under politicians vying for power, and many have gone to the media as their outlet for voicing their opinion, and that opinion has apparently made its way in to a large majority of peoples minds. However, I'm willing to believe that a president who stands behind his decisions in lieu of incredibly dropping poll numbers, must know a little bit more about the situation than I or the common media outlet...

Thus said, I am not immediately swaying my favor behind war....

I take a look at how our nation's leaders have stood behind the decision for war, and it baffles me that Bush takes most of the heat. But, I think that is the job of the president, and that is why he has stood resolute behind his decision for war, in the face of incredibly dropping poll numbers. One has to ask the question, do you think the President and members of Congress, might be privvy to a little more intelligence than any media outlet has been able to garner? I think they have....

One must then ask the question, what if they do find WMD? I think we could agree on an answer there.

It is not smart politics to have a unhappy troops getting killed everyday if it is all for a shallow lie. I'm guessing that even if I was to be up on all the current events, I wouldn't be up on the truth, which I or you am not privy too. Bush is not dumb enough to do this right before an election, although he has shown his ability to be pretty damn dumb. I will continue to show my support for our troops and our nation's leaders that they can come through succesfully in these dark times...I think we would all benefit by doing the same until everything is found out.