WMDs and Bush - Lie or mistake?

Did the Bush administration lie about WMDs in Iraq or was the intelligence that they relied on faulty?

[bobman0330]

I have a question re: this poll for the people who voted for "lied." Is it your opinion that Bush/Cheney/Karl Rove/whoever failed to consider that their lie would become public after the invasion? Or do you think they just didn't care?

2nd question for those that voted for Lied:

What's your reason for believing that they lied?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I voted mistake because Clinton has repeatedly said that on the day he left office, he was 100% certain that Iraq had WMDs. Add to that the fact that in the mid-90's, "Sixty Minutes" aired footage of the aftermath of an Iraqi nerve gas attack on Kurdish villages, it's pretty clear that Iraq *had* WMD.

Now whether GWB had knowledge that Saddam had already gotten all the weapons out by '03 is open to debate, but one could hardly have trusted any of the Iraqi claims based upon the way they screwed around with the UN inspectors. If you're clean, why act like you're trying to hide something?

The UN dropped the ball on Iraq, allowing itself to be manipulated and stalled by Saddam.

IMO, our invasion of Iraq was a day late and a dollar short.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
I voted mistake because Clinton has repeatedly said that on the day he left office, he was 100% certain that Iraq had WMDs. Add to that the fact that in the mid-90's, "Sixty Minutes" aired footage of the aftermath of an Iraqi nerve gas attack on Kurdish villages, it's pretty clear that Iraq *had* WMD.

[/ QUOTE ]Having remnants of old WMD (which we likely helped them get back in the day) is different than what the Bush Administration claimed. They claimed there were active programs- and also claimed that the evidence was overwhelming- something which people in the top of the WMD intelligence field (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_ElBaradei) strongly disagreed with. Claiming that the case was a "slam-dunk" was a lie.

A review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_in_Iraq

[hurlyburly]

I voted lie based on hearing Colin Powell's presentation of the evidence. I can't remember all the details, but I heard it on NPR. I really respect him. I could tell his heart wasn't in it when he presented the evidence, and wasn't comfortable selling the package.

I decided right then that if it wasn't good enough for him, it wasn't good enough. At that point everyone making the case for war started sounding like they were trying to convince themselves as much as everyone else.

Still, it's good that Saddam is gone, albeit 12 years past due.

[vulturesrow]

If anyone bothered to read the final report of the inspectors (which is it clear to me that most didnt) they would see that Saddam wanted us to believe he still had WMD and that he was maintaining the infrastructure necessary to ramp up production quickly once the sanctions were dropped. Also there is a strong feeling by many out there that Syria may have been the beneficiary of WMD largesse from Saddam.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

It's useless to argue. There's no way of knowing for certain if those programs were active in the year leading up to the invasion or not. The Iraqi's acted like they were hiding something from the UN. There's a whole gray area out there. Was Saddam actively helping al-Qaeda plan 9/11? No. He had no use for Wahhabism. Would he look the other way and let people bent on attacking the US operate without interference? Of course, as long as they didn't foment unrest in Iraq.

[theweatherman]

haha, people really think we had faulty intelligence?!?!?!

Are you retarded? Seriously America knows exactly whats going on all over the world all the time, the only way we would be tricked is by some highly funded, high tech operation. There is no way we could not see every square inch of iraq before we invaded.

[ QUOTE ]
Having remnants of old WMD (which we likely helped them get back in the day) is different than what the Bush Administration claimed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm curious why you think it's relevant to reference that we once supported Hussein. Do you think that means we are hypocritical for fighting against him now? Does supporting one group forever hamper us from being against them?

Clearly, when we supported Hussein, it was because we felt like Iran was the larger threat. Not that much different from how we were allies with Stalin in order to fight the larger threat of Hitler.

[BCPVP]

George Bush is a politician, agreed?
Politicians like to be re-elected, agreed?
The lack of WMDs would be found out if we invaded, agreed?
So why would Bush take the chance to not get relected by openly lying? What did he gain from that "lie"?
Wouldn't you agree that had Bush just stomped all over Afghanistan and done absolutely nothing about Iraq, he probably could have won big over any challenger? So why take the risk?

[vulturesrow]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
haha, people really think we had faulty intelligence?!?!?!

Are you retarded? Seriously America knows exactly whats going on all over the world all the time, the only way we would be tricked is by some highly funded, high tech operation. There is no way we could not see every square inch of iraq before we invaded.

[/ QUOTE ]

You obviously have no real concept of how intelligence is gathered other than what youve seen in the movies.

[hurlyburly]

Actually, it's very different. It would be similar if we had provided Stalin with technology and resources, he fought Hitler, and we just hoped that he won. Supporting Hussein was always wrong.

[elwoodblues]

I would say a little from column A and a litle from column B. In my opinion, the lie was not their belief that there were WMDs, but rather the lie was their characterization of the case. It's one thing to say, we have evidence, some of it is stronger than other parts of it, but that evidence leads me to the conclusion that Saddam has WMDs. It's another thing to suggest that the evidence is rock-solid when it isn't.

[Roybert]

[ QUOTE ]
George Bush is a politician, agreed?
Politicians like to be re-elected, agreed?
The lack of WMDs would be found out if we invaded, agreed?
So why would Bush take the chance to not get relected by openly lying? What did he gain from that "lie"?
Wouldn't you agree that had Bush just stomped all over Afghanistan and done absolutely nothing about Iraq, he probably could have won big over any challenger? So why take the risk?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because he thought we would win in a walk and be seen as liberators. If the war went well, he knew that Americans wouldn't care about the justifications for going to war. We (as a country) would only care that: a) we won big, and b) few of our troops died.

[Roybert]

[ QUOTE ]
2nd question for those that voted for Lied:

What's your reason for believing that they lied?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Downing Street Minutes.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
If the war went well, he knew that Americans wouldn't care about the justifications for going to war.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't agree. Just because a war is going well, doesn't mean that it is garaunteed support or exempt from justification.

[ QUOTE ]
We (as a country) would only care that: a) we won big, and b) few of our troops died.

[/ QUOTE ]
Relatively speaking, bot of these have happened. Yet we're still debating Iraq. Apparently there's more to war then just winning big with few losses...

[Roybert]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
We (as a country) would only care that: a) we won big, and b) few of our troops died.

[/ QUOTE ]
Relatively speaking, bot of these have happened. Yet we're still debating Iraq. Apparently there's more to war then just winning big with few losses...

[/ QUOTE ]

We're winning big? We don't have any idea what winning is and we have even less of an idea when we'll get out of there. This is due to an acute lack of leadership - Bush has never defined for the American people what needs to happen in order for us to 'win', and he has never told us when we can expect that to happen.

Bush's approval ratings were sky high on "Mission Accomplished" day and all of the doubts about the justifications for going to war were known then. Over time, these doubts have been more or less proven, and it is my contention that people are increasingly pessimistic because it is not going well. We are not winning big, and this coupled with a consistant casualty count is causing the public outcry.

[Wes ManTooth]

I did not vote for this poll either way, I can't clearly say one side is right or wrong.

Saying it was a clear cut lie is difficult to believe (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/07/iraq.nuclear/)

Though publicly no actual finished WMDs were found, just based on the size of materials found its difficult to suggests that Saddam was not up to anything suspicious.

[kurto]

I'm happy enough to know that prior to 9/11, both Rice and Powell had said that Saddam was disarmed and not a threat.

Furthermore, I remember throughout the buildup for the war, reading numerous stories about our own intelligence agencies telling the White house that the evidence was bad. That was around the time when the Bush White House created their own 'second' intelligence organization who parrotted what they wanted said.

Third; the quality of the evidence they offered was so shoddy. The forgeries passed to the UN which our own intelligence agencies had declared faulty many months before... were so bad, that the UN declared them fakes within an hour. The mistakes were so bad; for instance, documents signed by people and dated, well after the supposed signer was already dead. That sort of thing.

Its no news that people within his own administration have reportedly said that Bush had been asking for a reason to go to Iraq since day 1 and that on 9/12... the decision was made.

The Downing street memos are just the icing on the cake.

I think they were fairly certain he had at least some kind of chemical weapons. The nuclear and biological stuff, I think they lied, or at least they intentionally deceived themselves and believed some very flimsy evidence.

There's no reason to blame this on the CIA or other intelligence-gathering agencies. In the buildup to the war, the White House was pressuring and attacking the CIA because the CIA wasn't gung-ho enough. Remember they set up their own intelligence office in Defense to "stovepipe" whatever evidence they could find that supported going to war?

No, the Bushies had determined that they were going to invade Iraq, and they used whatever evidence they could find, manipulate, or create to justify their decision.

[ QUOTE ]
I Also there is a strong feeling by many out there that Syria may have been the beneficiary of WMD largesse from Saddam.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has come to this? A "strong feeling"? Is this the same "many out there" that have "a strong feeling" that "intelligent design"/creationism should be taught instead of evolution?

[Arnfinn Madsen]

I voted for lie. Do I know it was a lie? No. But I find it most probable.

I think what is important to consider when judging this is how the game of high-level politics plays out in 2 phases:

Decision making:
An informal network gather information and combined with their personal beliefs (this matters most) they make a decision on which action they want to take (in this case attack Iraq).

Defending their decision:
In defending their decision, their original reasons and information is mostly considered irrelevant. What is important in this phase is to "sell" the decision to the population, poweful domestic political allies and potentially foreign nations. The claims about WMDs were made as a part of this phase, and since Bush really needed selling points both towards his own population and towards foreign countries, to believe that he would not manipulate the evidence is extremely naive (any president in any major country from any party would do that).

That being said, it is very possible that ex-Iraqis and others managed to manipulate the decision process, so it is possible that Bush made his decision on the wrong foundation, but when entering into the selling phase it must have become evident for him anyway that the evidence did not hold up (you could see this in the US' attempt to avoid real discussion about the evidence and their eagerness to avoid further inspections).

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Having remnants of old WMD (which we likely helped them get back in the day) is different than what the Bush Administration claimed.

[/ QUOTE ]I'm curious why you think it's relevant to reference that we once supported Hussein. Do you think that means we are hypocritical for fighting against him now? Does supporting one group forever hamper us from being against them?

Clearly, when we supported Hussein, it was because we felt like Iran was the larger threat. Not that much different from how we were allies with Stalin in order to fight the larger threat of Hitler.

[/ QUOTE ]I didn't reference our support of Hussein. I referenced how WMD likely originally got into Iraq: with U.S. dollars.

I mention it because many [censored] morons like those on talk radio say "Of course Iraq had WMD. He used them on the Kurds. Liberals are [censored] stupid." They purposely mischaracterize the arguments of the anti-war crowd into something not at all like what it is. You can see even people on these boards like El Barto mocking liberals for not thinking Iraq ever had WMD.

The fact that after 4 years of debate a large portion of America still has not the slightest clue what another larger portion of America is saying is just astounding- and depressing.

Maybe I'm missing something, but please explain to me how it is relevant that WMDs got into Iraq through U.S. dollars?

[lehighguy]

Is neglectful/avoidable mistake an option.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I'm missing something, but please explain to me how it is relevant that WMDs got into Iraq through U.S. dollars?

[/ QUOTE ]It negates the argument that past existence and use of WMD were a valid excuse for pre-emptive invasion.

[vulturesrow]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
I Also there is a strong feeling by many out there that Syria may have been the beneficiary of WMD largesse from Saddam.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has come to this? A "strong feeling"? Is this the same "many out there" that have "a strong feeling" that "intelligent design"/creationism should be taught instead of evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dont be an ass. Let me put it to you a little more definitively. I think there is a very large chance that WMD were transported to Syria. Many people I know think this as well.

[ QUOTE ]
I voted lie based on hearing Colin Powell's presentation of the evidence. I can't remember all the details, but I heard it on NPR. I really respect him. I could tell his heart wasn't in it when he presented the evidence, and wasn't comfortable selling the package.

I decided right then that if it wasn't good enough for him, it wasn't good enough. At that point everyone making the case for war started sounding like they were trying to convince themselves as much as everyone else.

Still, it's good that Saddam is gone, albeit 12 years past due.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting that you listened on radio and decided one way. I watched him make his presentation on TV and I decided the other.

Like a lot of ex-military, I don't like the idea of "gettin' it ooooooon." I watched Powell while he was CJCOS and developed a deep respect for him. He was given an assignment and he carried it out. That included listening to his advisors and trusting their judgement, then making the go/no-go decisions himself. He swore an oath, he meant it and he did his duty.

Because I respected and trusted the man, I believed the stories that he argued, early on, against invading Iraq. I know he saw the potential problems and the ramifications of making the first strike. I have no doubt he made his feelings known to GWB.

Then, the "intel" was presented to Powell. He's not stupid. He has sources/means to verify. He used them. My experience with intel, human and electronic, has been that it's not always conclusive. Interpretations are made. Disagreements abound. Consensus is frequently marginal.

Powell was, IMO, convinced the intel was correct. I didn't see any hesitation or attempts to deceive. I believed he believed what he was saying. And now we are where we are.

[vulturesrow]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
My experience with intel, human and electronic, has been that it's not always conclusive. Interpretations are made. Disagreements abound. Consensus is frequently marginal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish more people understood this.

[West]

This Modern World (http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=16793)

This Modern World (http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=15239)

hey moron,
walk away from the X-box. Even though Hi Tech is great, we cant see through clouds, rock, mountains, or even most thin metal roofs like most warehouses have. Turn off Sci-Fi channel, and read a newspaper.(preferably not the NY times)
P.S. Remember the lines of trucks enroute to Syria in the 3 weeks leading up to the war, what were they carrying??? oh yeah, X-boxes....

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're clean, why act like you're trying to hide something?

[/ QUOTE ]

The secretive nature of all dictatorships is a factor. Especially dictatorships on a war footing, which has been on, moreover, for decades.

Plus, the fact that Saddam Hussein did not want Iraq to appear militarily weaker, especially towards Israel and Iran, its arch-enemies. Beyond that, the stalling was a standard netotiating ploy towards placating the western demands by slowly feeding them with compliance.

This case (why Saddam's Iraq did not open everything to inspection) has been examined and analyzed already. Western intelligence was perfectly aware of the ways of Saddam's Iraq.

[John Cole]

Iraq delivers a 1400 page report detailing the elimination of WMDs--in Farsi. Question: How long did the US wait before denouncing the report as a pack of lies?

Joe Wilson anyone?

Our intelligence shows that WMDs are being moved before UN inspectors show up for inspections.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Iraq delivers a 1400 page report detailing the elimination of WMDs--in Farsi. Question: How long did the US wait before denouncing the report as a pack of lies?

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems you are questioning the ability of the USA to so quickly determine what the submitted report contained. I'll get to that in a moment, but first, here is my recollection of events:

The objection of the U.S. was that the report contained nothing new (not that it was a pack of lies); that it was merely a massive resubmission of documents detailing the already known and previously documented destruction of certain WMD's (actually, most of Iraq's WMDs).

The key element being requested of Iraq was documentation of certain WMDs which had been known to exist but of which their destruction remained unverified.

Under U.N. auspices and observation, Iraq had destroyed large quantities of WMDs. Saddam also later claimed to have unilaterally destroyed the remaining WMDs without U.N. observation, but he offered no substantiation for those acts other than his own word.

The U.S. was objecting that the 1400 page document detailed the destruction only of the former, not the latter.

The Baathist cronies under Saddam's rule were supreme archivists, keeping written records on nearly everything of importance that ever transpired, right down to the names of, and methods of torture and execution used upon, suspected political opponents; their physical and dental conditions, and much more. A large prison contained such detailed archives on all of its inmates. The regime appears to have archived other types of security-related matters in similarly ultra-painstaking fashion.

It would be very odd and out-of-character for the regime to have not meticulously archived the purported unilateral destruction of the WMDs in question. However, they submitted nothing regarding such events in their latest compiled report. And they KNEW that presentation of at least SOME substantiating evidence of the claimed unilateral destructions was the very reason the report was being asked of them in the first place.

Since the submitted report only dealt with already known information, the U.S. denounced it as "nothing new" and a stalling tactic.

Now, how could the U.S. have determined what was in the lengthy report, written in a foreign language, so quickly? My guess is that the entire document was not translated, but rather headings and sub-headings, dates and so forth, were translated and outlined to see what was and was not covered. If all the dates and headings/sub-headings were merely duplicates of already known and reported events, then it is not hard to imagine how the U.S. could so quickly have known that it was all old material.

I do agree the timing looks questionable, but my opinion is that it is not nearly so far-fetched as you seem to believe. Actually, I would guess that the likely answer is just as outlined above.

[andyfox]

The fact is that key members of the administration, including Cheney, Runsfeld, and Wolfowitz, had called for a change of regime in Iraq in 1992. So when they got into power, it was a foregone conclusion that Hussein would be gotten rid of. He had outlived his usefulness.

There was nothing that could have been in the report that would have changed things. The administration had already made up its mind. This is clear and incontestable. One can agree that it was the right thing to do; or think that it was wrong. There is, IMHO, a case that can be made for getting rid of Hussein for humanitarian reasons. What can't be done is to deny that the die was cast before 9/11. Afer 9/11, the administration did everything it could to link Hussein with 9/11 and to try to get the public to see things in the prism of Husseinaphobia.

I'm amazed when people deny that there could have been lying or manipulation of facts. It's like in Casablanca when Claude Raines shuts down Sam's place because he's "shocked, SHOCKED," to find out there was gambling going on. And right after he says that, they bring him his winnings, for which he says, "thank you." I'd be shocked if someone can cite any war we've fought in, or, for that matter, any war any country has fought it, that the leaders didn't lie or fudge about.

It didn't matter what was in those 1400 pages, the administration was going to reject it, period.

[John Cole]

M, I'll agree that "pack of lies" smacks of rank hyperbole; however, it took less than a day, I believe, for the report to be denounced. As a sort of analogy: one company markets a software program that will read and grade student essays. In fact, it does so too quickly, so the designers built in a delay to keep students from becoming suspicious. Perhaps we may have waited a week or so.

As far as "stalling tactic" goes, yes, I can see where that would be of utmost concern. After all, we were in "imminent danger."

When asked what the public's opnion was of a certain issue was, George Bush the First, replied, "I don't know; we haven't had time to create it yet." The son seems to have learned something from the father.

[MMMMMM]

Andy, I agree that the die was probably cast aforehand, and that it might not have much mattered what was in those reports.

My overall take of the grander picture is twofold:

1) that the U.S. government employed a fair bit of "spin" in making the case for invasion, yet probably without actually engaging in substantial lying or the fabricating of evidence

2) that Saddam obfuscated, delayed, cheated, denied, kicked and screamed, dug in his heels for many years, all the while being as obstreporous as possible--as he systematically went about torturing, maiming, raping, killing, and generally doing great evils to the Iraqi populace on grand scale. So, if he got a bit of short shrift at the end, well, I'll just have to say, better late than never.

This is one case where I think the the removal of the regime would justify more even than mere spin. My empathies are with the long-brutalized Iraqi people, and I think that their fate and future matters far more than whether or not we are above employing a bit of spin on the public stage.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as "stalling tactic" goes, yes, I can see where that would be of utmost concern. After all, we were in "imminent danger."

[/ QUOTE ]

Well it turns out we weren't in imminent danger--although I thought the administration's line was that of precluding the advent of imminent danger, not that it was already upon us.

At any rate, over a decade of stalling was too long, and Saddam's regime was severely brutalizing the Iraqi people on grand scale all the while--please see my response to Andy for more of my take on this aspect.

[ QUOTE ]
When asked what the public's opnion was of a certain issue was, George Bush the First, replied, "I don't know; we haven't had time to create it yet." The son seems to have learned something from the father.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reading this, I had a related glimmer of what one difference between our respective takes on the overall picture might be: you and Andy seem immensely concerned with the propriety of our own conduct, whereas I feel the plight of the brutalized and tyrannized should take precedence in evaluating things.

That's perhaps a crude way of putting it and not exactly what I am trying to say, but I'm not finding the exact words at the moment. I certainly don't intend it as casting aspersion on your degree of empathy for the Iraqis. I'm just observing that we seem to weigh these things differently somehow. As far as I'm concerned, Bush could lie, saying the moon was made of green cheese, if it would also mean that a terrible tyrant would be deposed and an entire people potentially liberated.

In my view there is nothing on the Earth more evil, and more harmful to the human spirit and psyche, or more of a bane to human existence; than vast and brutal tyranny. Lying, certainly, is far less evil. Also, as in my post to Andy, I don't think the administration so much lied as employed a healthy (or perhaps unhealthy) dose of spin.

Just some things to consider. I doubt if we'll ever see completely eye to eye on this, but if my guess is right--that you and Andy weight the above-mentioned things somehow differently than I do--then that might explain much of why we differ on this matter.

[nicky g]

"Also there is a strong feeling by many out there that Syria may have been the beneficiary of WMD largesse from Saddam.
"

There is a strong feeling by many out there that Elvis is still alive. It would really depress me if you really belive this is a likely explanation for what happened.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I Also there is a strong feeling by many out there that Syria may have been the beneficiary of WMD largesse from Saddam.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has come to this? A "strong feeling"? Is this the same "many out there" that have "a strong feeling" that "intelligent design"/creationism should be taught instead of evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dont be an ass. Let me put it to you a little more definitively. I think there is a very large chance that WMD were transported to Syria. Many people I know think this as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Consider me extremely depressed.

[ QUOTE ]


There is a strong feeling by many out there that Elvis is still alive.



[/ QUOTE ]

You evidently don't hang out at a lot of 7/11's, do you?

Long Live The King!!!!

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
Iraq delivers a 1400 page report detailing the elimination of WMDs--in Farsi. Q

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely Arabic?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Iraq delivers a 1400 page report detailing the elimination of WMDs--in Farsi. Q

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely Arabic?

[/ QUOTE ]

Picky, picky, picky.

If there are nits to be picked, it's 18-4 they're gonna get picked!

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Iraq delivers a 1400 page report detailing the elimination of WMDs--in Farsi. Q

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely Arabic?

[/ QUOTE ]

Picky, picky, picky.

If there are nits to be picked, it's 18-4 they're gonna get picked!

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

John and I are on the same side of this debate. I'm just curious as to why it would be written in Farsi if it was.

[John Cole]

M,

We've probably been over this before, but I would have had far less trouble with the decision to depose Saddam had the rationale simply been put in moral terms: "He's a bad guy, and we have the moral obligation to end the suffering of the Iraqi people." Of course, you see why we can't use this sort of language.

[John Cole]

Nicky, I know Iraq has few speakers of Farsi, but for some reason I thought the report was written in Farsi. I'm probably wrong.

[John Ho]

If politicians were never reelected because they lied to the public nobody would ever get reelected.

That being said...I think they wanted the war so much (for what they thought were legit reasons) that they would not be dissuaded unless there was slam dunk proof that Saddam DIDN'T have WMDs anymore. Which of course was not going to happen.

My vote isn't there...it's a little bit of both options. But certainly Cheney lied like crazy by implying Saddam was linked to 9/11. No doubt there. Bush wasn't as blatant but there is no doubt he knew and approved what Cheney was saying.

[ QUOTE ]
George Bush is a politician, agreed?
Politicians like to be re-elected, agreed?
The lack of WMDs would be found out if we invaded, agreed?
So why would Bush take the chance to not get relected by openly lying? What did he gain from that "lie"?
Wouldn't you agree that had Bush just stomped all over Afghanistan and done absolutely nothing about Iraq, he probably could have won big over any challenger? So why take the risk?

[/ QUOTE ]

[John Ho]

LOL you and others believe this? Wow what a strong case.

Maybe we should invade Syria to find Saddam's WMDs. And if they aren't there we can invade Iran where Saddam's WMDs were moved via Syria according to my neighbor's kid's best friend's dad who vacuums at the State Department.

And when we don't find them in Iran we can invade North Korea since my dog's barking indicates she believes she heard the WMDs were transported there.

Then all our troubles will be over.

Bush's blunder and reelection is going to bite us in the ass in the coming years. If we actually did NEED to launch a preemptive war we are behind the 8 ball in getting international support.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I Also there is a strong feeling by many out there that Syria may have been the beneficiary of WMD largesse from Saddam.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has come to this? A "strong feeling"? Is this the same "many out there" that have "a strong feeling" that "intelligent design"/creationism should be taught instead of evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dont be an ass. Let me put it to you a little more definitively. I think there is a very large chance that WMD were transported to Syria. Many people I know think this as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there is a very large chance that WMD were transported to Syria. Many people I know think this as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that there is a very large chance that you've experienced some cognative dissonance on this issue. And I also believe that if there was any actual evidence of this whatsoever it would be part of every Bush speech and every McClellan press gaggle.

[ QUOTE ]


I think that there is a very large chance that you've experienced some cognative dissonance on this issue. And I also believe that if there was any actual evidence of this whatsoever it would be part of every Bush speech and every McClellan press gaggle.



[/ QUOTE ]

When using phraseology such as "cognitive dissonance," one should at least know the correct spelling, lest others doubt the intelligence of the aforementioned user.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

p.s.
"gaggle" - cute

[andyfox]

As I said, I think the humanitarian case is one that could have been made to support the war. But not by our guys. The reasons they gave for getting rid of Hussein never said anything about the people of Iraq. The open letter to President Clinton of January 26, 1998, signed by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz (among others) said nothing about the people of Iraq.

James Woolsey signed that letter. After 9/11, he said Iraq should be the target, "no matter who should be responsible" for the attacks. On September 15, Wolfowitz presented the argumment that the United States should attack Saddam Hussein, not Afghanistan.

While Hussein may well have obfuscated, his obfuscations and "spin" didn't hold a candle to ours. Richard Perle, who also signed the 1998 letter, said on behalf of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board that should the United States fail to get rid of Hussein, "it will open the floodgates to terror against us." The president told an audience in the Rose Garden in September 2002, "the danger to our country is grave." Although Iraq had just accepted the unconditional return of inspectors, whose aim was to account for weapons as yet undiscovered, Bush somehow already knew that "the Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. . . The Iraqi regaime is building facilities necesary to make more biological and chemical weapons. . . The regime is seeking a nuclear bomb." A month later he said, "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program," and "it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year." The president told journalists in the Rose Garden that "according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given." This was based on a British dossier which was lifted from a ten-year-old article in Middle East Review of International Affairs and two articles in Jane's Intelligence Review (including spelling mistakes!). The plagiarized ten-year-old evidence received a facelift in London, the language modifed by the Downing Street team to heighten the drama.

We utilized a "bit of spin" to go to war against a country that did not attack us on September 11; that did not intercept our planes (as did North Korea); that did not finance Al-Qaeda (as did Saudi Arabia); that was not home to Osama bin Laden's lieutenants (as was Pakistan); and was not a host body for terrorists (as were Iran and Syria).

And then, if this was not shameful enough, we refused to plan for the occupation, despite having all the information we needed to know about the perils of disbanding the army, the potential for looting, the probability of an insurgency, etc.

The reason the administration did not play up the humanitarian argument was because they didn't care about it. They only used it after its other arguments were questioned. There's no outcry from the administration, nor has there ever been, about widesprad torture, severe
restrictions on the media, arbitrary imprisonment of citizens, harassment and incarceration of opposition leaders, closure of opposition newspapers, and elections that are neither free nor fair when they take place in Uzbekistan or Kyrgyzstan. There's no case made for human dignity or freedom where the widespread use of forced child-labor camps in Myanmar or the Bhutanese government's atrocities involving village raids, gang rapes, torture and forced eviction against its southern Nepali-speaking population is concerned. There's no mention of a great moral cause or even a great strategic goal concerning the infamously despotic regime of Equatorial Guinea or the President of Turkmenistan, who granted himself presidency for life in a country known for its arbitrary imprisonment and torture of its citizens.

[andyfox]

"I thought the administration's line was that of precluding the advent of imminent danger, not that it was already upon us."

President Bush, September 2002: "The danger to our contry is grave." "The Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical atack in as ltttle as 45 minutes after the order is given."

I consider 45 minutes imminent.

"Andy seems immensely concerned with the propriety of our own conduct, whereas I feel the plight of the brutalized and tyrannized should take precedence in evaluating things."

I feel that way too. I wish our administration did. They don't. And yes, I'm concerned about propriety when the well-being of 200,000 of our boys are jeopardized for a policy based on "spin."

[MMMMMM]

Andy,

You are more concerned than I that we always act in the most impeccable manner possible.

Getting rid of Saddam was in my view a good and moral undertaking on every count, even if we went about it less than ideal propriety:

1) depose a brutal tyrant; give potentrial hope to the Iraqi people for the first time in decades

2) hopefully initiate and spread democracy in the Middle East

3) preempt any possibility of Saddam at later date supplying WMD to terrorists, or threatening his neighbors

4) whether or not he actually had WMD at the moment was largely irrelevant in my opinion: he had had them previously; he greatly desired and eventually would have acquired them again; he was our mortal enemy. Good enough reason right there to take him out.

5) he financially supported suicide bombers attacking Israel; he routinely fired on our aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone; he was intransigent as hell and extremely disinclined to honor the terms of the cease-fire which he signed

5) We need a major military outpost in the region from which to be able to counter Iran, and from which to have the option of exerting pressure on all manner of terrorist groups and their state supporting actors

6) We need a major military outpost in the region to be able to ensure the free passage of oil to world markets

7) We also need that same outpost in case we have to take out Iran's accelerating nuclear program before it reaches the point of no return

You seem SOOOOOO concerned that we act as perfect, as well as perfectly honorable, gentlemen, when dealing with bloodthirsty tyrants. I don't share your degree of concern because I think that the other matters--and our potential security concerns--weigh FAR more heavily.

Also, you seem to couch the humanitarian or liberating element only by comparing it to our endeavors )or lack thereof) regarding other worthy targets of intervention. But we have quite limited resources, and directing humanitarian aid primarily where it also serves our interests achieves a double-purpose and thus reduces effective cost in the long run.

All in all, I think you sort of are trying to apply your own standards of how you would deal with others in your own personal life or business, to national/international matters. Sadly, it just doesn't work that way, though. Moreover, I think that the big considerations as enumerated above simply dwarf any justifiable rebukes regarding our improprieties.

The most important thing is the Iraqi people now have a chance at freedom and self-determination, after decades of terror and brutality imposed upon them. In my opinion, that alone is worth more than all of your objections combined. The fact that we did not "sell" the war primarily on that basis DOES NOT detract one whit from the actual potential benefit to the Iraqi people. The fact that the welfare of the Iraqi people was somewhere well down the list of our objectives, is entirely IRRELEVANT to the Iraqis themselves who stand to benefit so greatly (hopefully, that is) from being freed from a Stalinist-style tyranny and by having the chance at genuine self-determination and freedom. Why the hell does it matter, humanitarian-speak-wise, what our goals are or were, if the Iraqis achieve such a chance for once? Even were our primary goals only to carry off 20 tons of secret mithril desert sands, the fact of their liberation dwarfs the importance our motivations, from THEIR perspective. And that's by far the most important perspective to be talked about, when disussing the humanitarian aspect in this case.

I realy think you are somewhat missing the forest for the trees, with your over-concern about the propriety and peccability of our conduct, because those are just NOT the most important concerns in this whole complex scenario, either from a humanitarian standpoint or from a security standpoint. Yes, it's nice to be perfect, and yes, we can always do better; but international affairs very seldom are perfect, and for good reason: the scale is too large and the matters too complex.

I do have some criticisms of the war, and of the "spin" employed, and of some other things; but overall I believe the war was an excellent cause, and that those concerns are relatively minor details against the much greater strategic and humanitarian backdrops.

[MMMMMM]

I recall things otherwise regarding the "imminent" aspect of the selling of the war; are you sure those quotes are not out of context slightly? At any rate I seem to recall that think there were more numerous quotes indicating a "grave" and "growing" danger rather than an "imminent" one.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Andy seems immensely concerned with the propriety of our own conduct, whereas I feel the plight of the brutalized and tyrannized should take precedence in evaluating things."


[/ QUOTE ]

I feel that way too. I wish our administration did. They don't. And yes, I'm concerned about propriety when the well-being of 200,000 of our boys are jeopardized for a policy based on "spin."

[/ QUOTE ]

Incomplete; just because there was some spin does not imply that there were not also valid reasons to go to war. See my other response for a more detailed listing of such reasons.

[Cyrus]

What a title, huh? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I would have had far less trouble with the decision to depose Saddam had the rationale simply been put in moral terms: "He's a bad guy, and we have the moral obligation to end the suffering of the Iraqi people." Of course, you see why we can't use this sort of language.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason that such a reasoning cannot be accepted* is that we would end up in situations where at all times, for action X, the public should accept reason A, without contest and as given by the government, while the real reason would be B.

But this would be accepting 1984 as our permanent date.





* It cannot be accepted theoretically, because this is what happens most of the time, actually. This is why "we cannot be using that kind of language", i.e. we cannot be invoking the plain truth. "We" being our government.

[twowords]

[ QUOTE ]
Getting rid of Saddam was in my view a good and moral undertaking on every count, even if we went about it less than ideal propriety:

1) depose a brutal tyrant; give potentrial hope to the Iraqi people for the first time in decades

2) hopefully initiate and spread democracy in the Middle East

3) preempt any possibility of Saddam at later date supplying WMD to terrorists, or threatening his neighbors

4) whether or not he actually had WMD at the moment was largely irrelevant in my opinion: he had had them previously; he greatly desired and eventually would have acquired them again; he was our mortal enemy. Good enough reason right there to take him out.

5) he financially supported suicide bombers attacking Israel; he routinely fired on our aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone; he was intransigent as hell and extremely disinclined to honor the terms of the cease-fire which he signed

5) We need a major military outpost in the region from which to be able to counter Iran, and from which to have the option of exerting pressure on all manner of terrorist groups and their state supporting actors

6) We need a major military outpost in the region to be able to ensure the free passage of oil to world markets

7) We also need that same outpost in case we have to take out Iran's accelerating nuclear program before it reaches the point of no return


[/ QUOTE ]

Your utilitarian reasons are not "good enough" for me to go to war or ask other Americans to do so in my place. The argument that these various potential benefits will outweight the tremendous costs is not good enough, and current trends suggest that they will not outweight them in any case.

If our best and brightest plotted scenarios of the Middle East and found that it was a strategic necessity to establish a US permenant base for the various reasons that you cited, I would like to see them. You might save yourself the trouble though. Instead of you'll find the first-term Bush State Department experts marginalized and often ignored, with the ideological and incompetent Rumsfeld and Wolfie in charge of our foreign policy.

The point remains that Bush et al. decided to take Iraq, then worked out the justifications and spun the evidence to make it possible. The thread at least seems to have agreed that WMD was the given primary reason, but not the true primary reason. "Lies" does not really apply, but the willing deception and insincerity cannot be denied. Our troops were intentionally deceived.

Of course, taking a country to war under manufactured pretexts is pretty standard throughout history. But Vietnam was supposed to be the last time for us; it was a lesson we should never have forgetten. Now, we've turned back the clock, and so much for the ideals of democracy and American exceptionalism.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Getting rid of Saddam was in my view a good and moral undertaking on every count, even if we went about it less than ideal propriety:

1) depose a brutal tyrant; give potentrial hope to the Iraqi people for the first time in decades

2) hopefully initiate and spread democracy in the Middle East

3) preempt any possibility of Saddam at later date supplying WMD to terrorists, or threatening his neighbors

4) whether or not he actually had WMD at the moment was largely irrelevant in my opinion: he had had them previously; he greatly desired and eventually would have acquired them again; he was our mortal enemy. Good enough reason right there to take him out.

5) he financially supported suicide bombers attacking Israel; he routinely fired on our aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone; he was intransigent as hell and extremely disinclined to honor the terms of the cease-fire which he signed

5) We need a major military outpost in the region from which to be able to counter Iran, and from which to have the option of exerting pressure on all manner of terrorist groups and their state supporting actors

6) We need a major military outpost in the region to be able to ensure the free passage of oil to world markets

7) We also need that same outpost in case we have to take out Iran's accelerating nuclear program before it reaches the point of no return

[/ QUOTE ]




Your utilitarian reasons are not "good enough" for me to go to war or ask other Americans to do so in my place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. We'll never agree on this, then. I personally think that attempting to relieve a country from brutal totalitarian tyranny and slaughter is a very good reason to contemplate war. I take it you must have been against the military intervention in Kosovo and the region, then, under Clinton?

I also think our potential future security concerns are very important indeed. You must weight the security-related points I listed as being of far less importance or seriousness than I do.

[ QUOTE ]
The argument that these various potential benefits will outweight the tremendous costs is not good enough, and current trends suggest that they will not outweight them in any case.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you must have weighted the cost/benefit ratio differently than I did, prior to the war. My own assessment of that ratio has changed somewhat since the war, and I can see things we should have done differently. Hindsight is always superior.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
We've probably been over this before, but I would have had far less trouble with the decision to depose Saddam had the rationale simply been put in moral terms: "He's a bad guy, and we have the moral obligation to end the suffering of the Iraqi people."

[/ QUOTE ]

I think one can well criticize the administrations selling of the war, but for me that is different than criticizing the act of going to war itself. If the reason you list is valid, it is not made more or less valid by the administration's emphasis of selling points or lack thereof.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, you see why we can't use this sort of language.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suggest the following for consideration: that all free countries in the world should join together for a common purpose, use exactly such language, and jointly depose every dictator and totalitarian regime on the face of the Earth in sequential fashion; replacing them all with democratic-style constitutional republics. Of course, the handwriting on the wall after the first half-dozen or so, would probably provide greater impetus to reform in countries where there are already reform movements which presently lack sufficient strength to carry out their objectives.

[andyfox]

"You are more concerned than I that we always act in the most impeccable manner possible."

That's an inexact description of my position. I am, apparently, more concerned than you that we tell the truth when we're talking about invading a country with 200,000 troops and plan to occugy it for several years. I am concerned that the whole enterprise isn't based on a sham.

That's a big issue to me. Much bigger than, say, when the prsident and Hary Reid say Ms. Miers will make a wonderful Supreme Court justice. There they're probably "spinning" since she hasn't been a judge heretofore.

I don't see how the invasion can be considered a moral undertaking when the undertakers (no pun intended) were neither truthful with their explanation about why we did it, nor careful with American lives in the execution (no pun intended).

I don't ask for perfection. I ask for candor and diligence. We got neither.

As for the forest, it's a mess. Our curent military policy seems to be having our boy drive up and down the streets of the cities until they'r shot at. The election which was held yesterday is ridiculous. The draft constitution will only be rejected if more than 2/3 of the voters reject it in three out of four regions. And the insurgency is killing far more Iraqis than Americans. We could have planned for such an insurgency but rejected planning in favor of Rumsfeld's "stuff happens."

It's a disgrace. The people of Iraq deserve better, as do our boys.

[andyfox]

I would have accepted the "spun" reasons for going to war if the administration had a plan to win the peace. But they didn't. There were government and private studies about the perils of disbanding the army; about the likelihood of looting; about the problems with infrastructure; about the likelihood of insurgency; about the possibility of civil war; about the influx of terrorists that an American occupation would bring; about the difficulties of culling a democracy from the melange of Iraqi religious and ethnic groups. But Rumsfeld wouldn't even let his people attend the meetings and the potential of these problems were swept under the rug, the beter to deflect potential criticism of the pending invasion.

Inexcusable and unacceptable. I said in another post in this thread that the Iraqi people deserve better. This is precisely what our policy was in Vietnam. Run in like a bul in a china shop and don't plan for the well-being of the people we're supposed to be defending.

[mackthefork]

I voted lied, in my opinion it was their only option to make this war politically acceptable, WMD was not the reason for war. The fact that there may have been various other good reasons for the war, and that they can just suggest that they always used them and people would swallow it is a good reason to believe that they lied and didn't care that it would be found out.

Mack

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My experience with intel, human and electronic, has been that it's not always conclusive. Interpretations are made. Disagreements abound. Consensus is frequently marginal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish more people understood this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think people do, that's why they don't like us making important (life/death) decisions based on intelligence when it seems close.

Regards Mack

[twowords]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Getting rid of Saddam was in my view a good and moral undertaking on every count, even if we went about it less than ideal propriety:

1) depose a brutal tyrant; give potentrial hope to the Iraqi people for the first time in decades

2) hopefully initiate and spread democracy in the Middle East

3) preempt any possibility of Saddam at later date supplying WMD to terrorists, or threatening his neighbors

4) whether or not he actually had WMD at the moment was largely irrelevant in my opinion: he had had them previously; he greatly desired and eventually would have acquired them again; he was our mortal enemy. Good enough reason right there to take him out.

5) he financially supported suicide bombers attacking Israel; he routinely fired on our aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone; he was intransigent as hell and extremely disinclined to honor the terms of the cease-fire which he signed

5) We need a major military outpost in the region from which to be able to counter Iran, and from which to have the option of exerting pressure on all manner of terrorist groups and their state supporting actors

6) We need a major military outpost in the region to be able to ensure the free passage of oil to world markets

7) We also need that same outpost in case we have to take out Iran's accelerating nuclear program before it reaches the point of no return

[/ QUOTE ]




Your utilitarian reasons are not "good enough" for me to go to war or ask other Americans to do so in my place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. We'll never agree on this, then. I personally think that attempting to relieve a country from brutal totalitarian tyranny and slaughter is a very good reason to contemplate war. I take it you must have been against the military intervention in Kosovo and the region, then, under Clinton?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh please M, that was one point out of your seven, and most definately the least important reason we went to war. Andy has sufficiently explained how the liberation is clearly a bonus and not a high priority or reason to go to Iraq. If it were a primary reason, there are many other worse places we could liberate and we are not doing so.
[ QUOTE ]

I also think our potential future security concerns are very important indeed. You must weight the security-related points I listed as being of far less importance or seriousness than I do.


[/ QUOTE ]

They are of utmost importance. However, I don't agree with your neo-conservative security prescriptions. Obviously neither does America, since the administration had to resort to exagerating and misrepresenting WMD evidence to gain support for the war. Why not just lay out the case like you did? See previous post also.

[vulturesrow]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
I Also there is a strong feeling by many out there that Syria may have been the beneficiary of WMD largesse from Saddam.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has come to this? A "strong feeling"? Is this the same "many out there" that have "a strong feeling" that "intelligent design"/creationism should be taught instead of evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dont be an ass. Let me put it to you a little more definitively. I think there is a very large chance that WMD were transported to Syria. Many people I know think this as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Consider me extremely depressed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any particular reason you think this isnt the case? There is enough evidence to at least leave it open as a possibility.

[Felix_Nietsche]

1. Iraq used mustard gas on the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq War.
2. Iraq used Chemical/Bio weapons against the Kurds.
3. Israel takes out the Iraq nuclear facilty.

Then after the first Gulf War Saddam kicks out all the weapon inspectors and claims that he MAGICALLY got rid of all his WMD....without showing any proof that he did so. Sorry, but excuse me if I don't take Saddam's word for it. Assuming that Iraq had stockpiles of Chem/BIO weapons was a reasonable conclusion and every other intelligence service in the world agreed upon.

My personal belief is Iraq destroyed their remaining stockpiles (which wasn't much) and put their WMD in hibernation mode with the plan to resurect their WMD program after the sanctions were lifted. The second Gulf War screwed up their plans....

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow. We'll never agree on this, then. I personally think that attempting to relieve a country from brutal totalitarian tyranny and slaughter is a very good reason to contemplate war. I take it you must have been against the military intervention in Kosovo and the region, then, under Clinton?


[/ QUOTE ]


Oh please M, that was one point out of your seven, and most definately the least important reason we went to war. Andy has sufficiently explained how the liberation is clearly a bonus and not a high priority or reason to go to Iraq. If it were a primary reason, there are many other worse places we could liberate and we are not doing so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where it ranks on our list of personal objectives has no impact on whether or not is was a good cause in the real world. Deposing ANY brutal dictartor who is tyrannizing 20 million+ people is in my view a worthy cause--REGARDLESS of of whether it is our main purpose or not. And of the candidate places for costly intervention, since costs are not a non-factor, it is pragmatic to take into consideration as well the potential benefits to ourselves (an indirect method of offsetting costs).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also think our potential future security concerns are very important indeed. You must weight the security-related points I listed as being of far less importance or seriousness than I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are of utmost importance. However, I don't agree with your neo-conservative security prescriptions. Obviously neither does America, since the administration had to resort to exagerating and misrepresenting WMD evidence to gain support for the war. Why not just lay out the case like you did? See previous post also.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have always disagreed somewhat with the way the case was laid out--and even more so in hindsight. Yet however poorly you sell a good thing, it is still remains a good thing--your bumbling salesmanship efforts have little to no impact on the merits of the thing itself. And the Iraq war had merits in many ways.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how the invasion can be considered a moral undertaking when the undertakers (no pun intended) were neither truthful with their explanation about why we did it, nor careful with American lives in the execution (no pun intended).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is where we may differ philosophically. In my view, if it's a good thing in overall thrust, it's still a good thing even if the motives and methods for achieving it were impure. Of course it remains to be seen just how good the long-term effects might be.


I would have liked to have seen the war sold better, and without spin, and with more emphasis on the plain goodness of removing a brutal tyrant and installing democracy. It wasn't sold that way. That's a shame. But that in no way mitigates the fact that overall the war serves a very good purpose (actually, multiple very good purposes).

[andyfox]

There's merit in your point that bumbling salesmanship might well have nothing to do with the quality, or lack thereof, of the product itself. I see the salesmanship as misrepresentation, not bumbling. And I see the product as a disaster for the Iraqi people, largely because of poor planning of our part:

"Why should I care? Nothing has changed since we have elected this government: no security, no electricity, no water," said Saad Ibrahim, a Shiite resident of Baghdad's Karrada district. "The constitution will not change that. The main issue is not getting this constitution passed, but how to stop terrorism."

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I would have accepted the "spun" reasons for going to war if the administration had a plan to win the peace. But they didn't. There were government and private studies about the perils of disbanding the army; about the likelihood of looting; about the problems with infrastructure; about the likelihood of insurgency; about the possibility of civil war; about the influx of terrorists that an American occupation would bring; about the difficulties of culling a democracy from the melange of Iraqi religious and ethnic groups. But Rumsfeld wouldn't even let his people attend the meetings and the potential of these problems were swept under the rug, the beter to deflect potential criticism of the pending invasion.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your real beef seems more about the selling and prosecution of the war rather than whether or not a war was merited in the first place. Fair enough and I definitely share some of those concerns. That however doesn't set me against the entire undertaking, nor does it change my view that the real-world reasons for war were valid.

If a poor car salesman sells you a really good used car, it's still a good car even if he misrepresented it a bit and even if the dealership performs poor service later. I think the Iraq war was fundamentally a good car which was poorly sold and serviced. We apparently paid too much for those reasons, but the car was special enough that it merited being bought in the first place.

[andyfox]

1. Iraq used mustard gas on the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq War.
2. Iraq used Chemical/Bio weapons against the Kurds.
3. Israel takes out the Iraq nuclear facilty.

How long ago did these things happen?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
There's merit in your point that bumbling salesmanship might well have nothing to do with the quality, or lack thereof, of the product itself. I see the salesmanship as misrepresentation, not bumbling.

[/ QUOTE ]



I agree there was some spin; perhaps that could be called misrepresentation.

[ QUOTE ]
And I see the product as a disaster for the Iraqi people, largely because of poor planning of our part: "Why should I care? Nothing has changed since we have elected this government: no security, no electricity, no water," said Saad Ibrahim, a Shiite resident of Baghdad's Karrada district. "The constitution will not change that. The main issue is not getting this constitution passed, but how to stop terrorism."

[/ QUOTE ]

If things greatly improve in Iraq within the next two or three years might that significantly alter your assessment of the merits of the war?

[andyfox]

The car is a lemon. A lemon both sold under false pretenses and poorly serviced The war might have been merited had it been undertaken for humanitarian reasons and the prosecution of the occuption been planned and executed in order to rectify the humanitarian concerns. As it was, the war was not merited because it was undertaken to pursue the neoconservative agenda which had nothing to do with humanitarianism in neither planning nor execution. When you occupy a country fir the wrong reason, it's inevitable that you do badly in the execution of the occupation because you're looking at the wrong forest and the wrong trees.

BTW, you'd make a much better spokesman for the administration than the ones they have now.

[twowords]

[ QUOTE ]
As it was, the war was not merited because it was undertaken to pursue the neoconservative agenda which had nothing to do with humanitarianism in neither planning nor execution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I understand what you mean. I agree the neo-cons are screwing us. But overall is it 1) an "agenda" for their own gains or of their benefactors/friends, or 2) an ill-conceived and misguided (IMO) but honest attempt at furthering American security? I learn toward the second option.

[ QUOTE ]

BTW, you'd make a much better spokesman for the administration than the ones they have now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most definitetly.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
The car is a lemon. A lemon both sold under false pretenses and poorly serviced The war might have been merited had it been undertaken for humanitarian reasons and the prosecution of the occuption been planned and executed in order to rectify the humanitarian concerns. As it was, the war was not merited because it was undertaken to pursue the neoconservative agenda which had nothing to do with humanitarianism in neither planning nor execution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just can't agree with this, for the following reasons:

1) I think the war may well turn out not to be a lemon after all, given enough time

2) The humanitarian reasons, FROM THE IRAQIS' PERSPECTIVE AND THE REAL WORLD PERSPECTIVE, existed just as strongly regardless of whether we ever mentioned them or not. In other words those reasons existed on their own merits, and would have still existed even if the USA was not a factor. Saddam's regime needed to be deposed.

3) The neoconservative agenda as regards foreign policy hads significant merit in my opinion


[ QUOTE ]
When you occupy a country fir the wrong reason, it's inevitable that you do badly in the execution of the occupation because you're looking at the wrong forest and the wrong trees.

[/ QUOTE ]

While we have made mistakes, I think ALL of the cited reasons for the war were esentially good reasons: pre-emption, human rights, neocon foreign policy, future security/oil concerns, etc. So if those reasons were presented with poor emphasis, I don't think it changes the crux of the matter: that the war was a good thing to decide to undertake at the time.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, you'd make a much better spokesman for the administration than the ones they have now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just call 'em as I see 'em;-)

[bilyin]

According to Bush, it is neither a lie nor a mistake. He said it is the right thing to do. Since we all know that is a lie, therefore he must be lying all along.

[pankwindu]

Rice basically revealed the lie on Meet the Press this morning. The real reason all along was never the WMDs, it was to reshape the Middle East.

From the transcript (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9684807/) :

[ QUOTE ]
SEC'Y RICE: I'm quite certain, Tim, that when the American people see every day what they see on their screens, which is violence and, of course, the deaths of Americans and coalition forces, it's very difficult to take. We mourn every sacrifice. But the fact of the matter is that when we were attacked on September 11, we had a choice to make. We could decide that the proximate cause was al-Qaeda and the people who flew those planes into buildings and, therefore, we would go after al-Qaeda and perhaps after the Taliban and then our work would be done and we would try to defend ourselves.

Or we could take a bolder approach, which was to say that we had to go after the root causes of the kind of terrorism that was produced there, and that meant a different kind of Middle East. And there is no one who could have imagined a different kind of Middle East with Saddam Hussein still in power. I know it's difficult, but we have ahead of us the prospect, and I think the very good prospect of a foundation for a democratic and prosperous Iraq that can solve its differences by politics and compromise, that becomes an anchor for a Middle East that is changing.

If you look at Lebanon and you look at the Palestinian territories and you look at what is going on in Egypt, this is a Middle East that is in transformation to something far better than we have experienced for the last 60 years when we thought that we could ignore democracy and get stability and, in fact, we got neither. So yes, it's long, and yes, it's hard, but if we quit now, we are not only going to condemn generations of people of the Middle East to despair, we are going to condemn generations of Americans to continued fear and insecurity.

[/ QUOTE ]

[andyfox]

This is not news. In 1998, Wolfowitz wrote in the New Republic that "toppling Saddam is the only outcome that can satisfy the vital U.S. interest in a stable and secure Gulf region." [emphasis added]

Voted lie, mainly but not entirely due to american weapons inspectors clearly stating before the invasion, in the english language, and in a manner which almost anyone who is not asleep when told could understand, that they did not exist.

[pankwindu]

Yes, old news to some, but not all. It's quite clear that the PNAC (http://www.newamericancentury.org/) folks have wanted a presence in the Middle East for years, and since Clinton wouldn't accomodate them, they had the plan ready on Day 1 of the Bush/Cheney reign. They simply thought that WMDs would be the best way to sell the war to the public. If they didn't outright lie, then at minimum they exaggerated and spun. In my book, that is as bad as lying, especially regarding matters of national security.

[Jedster]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I Also there is a strong feeling by many out there that Syria may have been the beneficiary of WMD largesse from Saddam.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has come to this? A "strong feeling"? Is this the same "many out there" that have "a strong feeling" that "intelligent design"/creationism should be taught instead of evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dont be an ass. Let me put it to you a little more definitively. I think there is a very large chance that WMD were transported to Syria. Many people I know think this as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Iraq transported WMD to Syria before the war, then it stands to reason that we are just as vulnerable to that WMD today as we were then. Unless, of course, you think that Syria is a better caretaker of WMD than Iraq. The problem is that now we are bogged down in Iraq when all the WMD is in Syria. So according to that line of (flawed) thinking, clearly then we must be much worse off today than we were before the war because the WMD threat remains unabated AND our military is bogged down in Iraq. So if you really think that WMD is in Syria, please explain how the Iraq war has not been an unmitigated failure.

Please note: my view is that there were no significant WMD in Iraq before the war and that therefore nothing was ever moved to Syria. I believe that if there were any evidence that Syria held these weapons that Bush-Cheney would have made this case. Some may argue that Bush-Cheney would not make this case because they don't want to start another war in Syria because we are bogged down in Iraq. If this is true, then it proves the general point that Iraq was a screw-up, because it has hamstrung our nation from going after true threats. But to reiterate, I have never seen a single piece of evidence to suggest that Syria received WMD.

But there is plenty of evidence that Bush's war has been a total disaster.

Haven't read everything yet, so I don't know if this has been stated, but Bush said, and I quote: "We've found the weapons of mass destruction" to Polish television. I would say that amounts to a lie. Cheney also said there was "no doubt" that Iraq had wmd. Anyone that actually paid attention during the build up knows that there was some doubt. I know we'll never be able to convince those that still support Bush, but come on guys, at least admit that they were less than fully honest.

[richie]

Nice post. I'd like to see the neos answer that question also.

[Jedster]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice post. I'd like to see the neos answer that question also.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's more likely that I'll win the WSOP next year.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
Haven't read everything yet, so I don't know if this has been stated, but Bush said, and I quote: "We've found the weapons of mass destruction" to Polish television. I would say that amounts to a lie. Cheney also said there was "no doubt" that Iraq had wmd. Anyone that actually paid attention during the build up knows that there was some doubt. I know we'll never be able to convince those that still support Bush, but come on guys, at least admit that they were less than fully honest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that I don't believe you (I do), but could you link to a reputable source with the quote "We've found the weapons of mass destruction"? That seems indefensible.

-ptmusic

[Jedster]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Haven't read everything yet, so I don't know if this has been stated, but Bush said, and I quote: "We've found the weapons of mass destruction" to Polish television. I would say that amounts to a lie. Cheney also said there was "no doubt" that Iraq had wmd. Anyone that actually paid attention during the build up knows that there was some doubt. I know we'll never be able to convince those that still support Bush, but come on guys, at least admit that they were less than fully honest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that I don't believe you (I do), but could you link to a reputable source with the quote "We've found the weapons of mass destruction"? That seems indefensible.

-ptmusic

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/g8/interview5.html

May 29, 2003

Q But, still, those countries who didn't support the Iraqi Freedom operation use the same argument, weapons of mass destruction haven't been found. So what argument will you use now to justify this war?

THE PRESIDENT: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.

LOL. I think he said REPUTABLE source /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Jedster]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL. I think he said REPUTABLE source /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

My bad! /images/graemlins/blush.gif /images/graemlins/tongue.gif /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Take it from a military intel soldier who just went through basic training and AIT before being discharged on a chapter 2 (medical discharge under honorable conditions) that our next front will be korea.

if an insider in the army isnt a reputable source, who is.