More Illogic from the Bush Administration

[andyfox]

Dick Cheney called critics of the Bush administration irresponsible in a speech on Thursday because they wanted to ignore intelligence warnings that Saddam Hussein was reconstituting Iraq's nuclear program.

Cheny cited a National Intelligence Estimate that Hussein "if left unchecked, [would] probably have a nuclear weapon during this decade."

"Having lost thousands of Americans on a single morning, we are not going to answer further danger by simply issuing a diplomatic protest . . . We will not wait in false comfort . . .we will act, and act decisively."

What is Cheney talking about? The United State did indeed act decisively in the wake of 9-11 by going after the terrorist organization responsible and the government that hoarbored that organization. It got rid of the Taliban and put it to Al Qaeda.

Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11. Cheney did not cite any evidence that he did, because that evidence does not exist. We did not simply issue a diplomatic protest or wait in false comfort.

How would Hussein "probably" having a nuclear weapon "during this decade" constitute a threat to us? WOuld Hussein have the means to deliver the weapon? Had Hussein threatened to deliver the weapon? Was Iraq's military formidable? Which country surrounded the other with 250,000 troops and was thus more of a threat to the other country? And what about Cheney's remarks on March 19 on Meet the Press where he said Hussein, in fact, had a nuclear program? Which is it: did he have one on March 19 or would he have one by the end of the decade?

"At a safe remove from the danger, some are now trying to cast doubt upon the decision to liberate Iraq," said Cheney. What danger? President Bush said himself there was no imminent danger. Liberating Iraq had nothing to do with any danger Hussein posed to us, it had to do with doing away with Hussein's regime insofar as it was dangerous to the Iraqi people, not the American people.

[MMMMMM]

Fine, Hussein probably had nothing to do with 9/11.

Soon we will be sure he won't have anything to do with the next 9/11, either.

As I said before, we're killing two birds with one stone: we're liberating the Iraqi people and reducing potential threats to ourselves at the same time. Way to go;-)

[kdog]

[ QUOTE ]
As I said before, we're killing two birds with one stone: we're liberating the Iraqi people and reducing potential threats to ourselves at the same time. Way to go;-)

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you really think that giving a few million Iraqi's the right to vote has anything to do with this? And as far as "potential threats" go,don't you find it interesting how the Saudi's are treated with kid gloves through all of this? Wouldn't be because they've got more oil than anyone else would it?
Bottom line is this war is more about oil change than regime change.

[MMMMMM]

Who CARES what the war was PRIMARILY about: ALL the reasons for the Iraq war were good. So prioritize them however suits your fancy.

[ACPlayer]

I sense and sympathize with your frustrations! The reality did not fit the image did it.

[TAFKAn]

How would Hussein "probably" having a nuclear weapon "during this decade" constitute a threat to us?

This is a pretty silly question. ANY enemy of the US with a nuke is a threat to the US. The rest of your points do make a lot of sense, but I think you are going overboard focusing on the spin and ignoring a basic truth about the spin.

If in fact Saddam Hussein were still in power AND he got his hands on a nuke, we would not be as safe as we were before he got a nuke. It's elementary.

Take North Korea for example. We have not fired a shot since the 50's. Do you feel just as safe, more safe, or less safe knowing they have recently developed a nuclear missile capable of striking the west coast of the US?

Living in the Bay Area, I feel less safe.

[andyfox]

My question, implicit I think, is, "How would Hussein 'probably" having a nuclear weapon 'during' this decade constitute a threat to us that required an invasion of Iraq?" Unquestionably the administration exaggerated the threat to us posed by Hussein.

[andyfox]

I think what you're saying, in your first two paragraphs, is exactly what the administration thinks. And since they can't say that, they have to make up a bunch of stuff and exaggerate. Every administration does it, especially in times of stress and especially when that stress involves military action. I don't understand why people have such a hard time seeing this.

The evidence in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate excerpts that the administration made public to try to counter criticism is exceedingly thin: no photographs of weapons sites, no substantion of allegations, no proof that would be of use to inspectors or targeters. The logical conclusion, given this, plus the fact that many in the administration had been calling for Hussein's removal for many years, is that the administration felt as you do and decided to get rid of him. The WMD argument, the 9-11 argument, and the late-adopted humaniatirian argument, were at best secondary, and probably just cover stories.

[andyfox]

The administration does, since they want to remain the administration after 2004. The Bush insiders were committed to getting rid of Hussein. They then justifed a preemptive war on very weak evidence. They're afraid it's going to come back to bite them in the ass. The October intelligence report was produced very quickly and under great pressure.

On July 17, the president said that "the truth is [Hussein] was developing a program for weapons of mass destruction."

Well, was he developing a "program" or did he have WMDs? Mr. Bush is not very careful with his words, but he also is not very careful with intelligence estimates. And that's certainly very dangerous.

[TAFKAn]

Ah. I didn't read it that way. In that case I think you are right.