WMDs and Bush - Lie or mistake?

[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 :

[ 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 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.