Let Me Paraphrase President Bush's speech tonight:

[ QUOTE ]
My take on that, Russian Bear, is just this: had Saddam's regime actually been where it was believed to have been as regards WMD and/or WMD development, then all of those statements would have been appropriate. And since it was widely so believed, those statements were indeed appropriate, even if found somewhat erroneous in hindsight.

[/ QUOTE ]
1. I was responding to the post that said Bush never made such statements when in fact he had.
2. Maybe we should've made damn sure Saddam's regime was where we thought it was before making asses of ourselves.
3. It was widely believed? Other than the administration and the puppets in England, who believed that nonsense?

[BCPVP]

Nice try, but none of those suggest an "immediate and imminent" threat that the guy I responded to suggested Bush/admin claimed. Even the grave/significant threat can't be argued against easily as he still had sanctions, the no-fly zone, and weapons inspections coming. Obviously he was some sort of threat, otherwise all of that was pointless.

Grave danger is not the same as imminent? Keep it up right-winger.

[sweetjazz]

DV,

You are absolutely right re my commment about irrational hatred of Bush. I was projecting onto you what I believe to have observed of other people who argue passionately about Bush. That is not fair to you, and it was a result of my being too passionate about what I believe in that I made an implicit claim that turned out not to be true.

Respectfully,
Mike

PS - I don't know why I put 'respectfully' signatures on any of my replies, but you deserve it as well. Sorry for the omission.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You've mastered one of Bush's (and moveon.org's) common techniques:

[/ QUOTE ]

So let's have a little inquiry into common debating techniques. Perhaps we can shed some light on this:



[/ QUOTE ]

First, I should apologize for the remark above. It is exactly the kind of thing that isn't very productive for debate. My point is that it is necessary to be careful that we don't commit the same flaws we find in others (in this case, distorting what others said to argue our cause), but I could have said it in a much productive and helpful way.

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
He dismisses the extreme leftwing criticisms of the war, and he is right to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Which 'extreme leftwing' criticisms has he/did he specifically dismissed/dismiss? One common technique in debates is to pretend as if you've dismissed your opponents points when you've actually just presented a strawman or red herring (for instance, constantly implying that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 when questioned about the wisdom of going to war, when no compelling evidence for such a claim exists)



[/ QUOTE ]

First, I agree that Bush often uses the dismissal of extreme leftwing views as a red herring. Unfortunately, the fact that these views do exist and do get a lot of publicity makes this move by Bush more successful than it ought to be. That is why it is so important to keep challenging him where he is wrong (e.g. his implication that the primary motivation of terrorists is their hate for American values of liberty and freedom -- when the primary motivation is clearly the presence of American troops in Arab lands, particularly Saudi Arabia during and after the Persian Gulf War) and try to get the silly arguments out of the public debate (e.g. that this war was primarily for oil).

[ QUOTE ]


2) Why are they 'extreme'? (because, as I'm sure you know, referring to opponents as 'extreme' is a common rhetorical technique that's used to cast opponents in an unpleasant light, while attempting to add some measure of credence that the arguer's position is more widely agreed upon or popular -- not that you would stoop to that hackneyed technique, though)



[/ QUOTE ]

My purpose in labelling the views as 'extreme' was to distinguish them from the many valid criticisms of Bush's policies that come from people on the left. I did not offer much of an elaboration to indicate what views I thought are valid and which are 'extreme' (which I meant to imply are so over-the-top that they are not basid on valid criticism but simply misinformation). The two examples I listed above give some examples of how I distinguish the two cases.

[ QUOTE ]


3) Why is he right to do so? (another common debating technique, again as I'm sure you're aware, is to present opinions as if they're fact and need no further explanation)



[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I think you make a good point here; the problem with debate is you are limited in how much you can say and you have to try to find things that are agreeable. I believe that it is right for Bush to dismiss criticisms about the war such as that it was primarily about oil or that he used 9/11 as an excuse for war in Iraq. The first claim I think you probably agree with, but I will address the second (perhaps more controversial) claim. It is clear that Bush has linked 9/11 with Iraq -- and in ways that I think are faulty -- but I don't think it is at all fair to say that he used 9/11 as an excuse, even if it is correct that he had considered war with Iraq before 9/11. From what he has said repeatedly linking 9/11 to Iraq, he has made it clear that in his mind, the events of 9/11 made it more urgent to him to deal with the threat of Saddam Hussein. I think that his judgment was wrong in this matter and that it led him to hastily start an invasion when there was more time to pursue diplomatic means and continue deterrance measures -- but I also think it is reasonable to accept at face value his reasoning here.

Besides, there is nothing more that Bush can do to answer the charge that 9/11 was an excuse for the war in Iraq than to outline his thinking on the matter.

I do acknowledge that he played up this line of thought a lot in his speeches -- and I do suspect that his political handlers encouraged this because the connection between 9/11 and Iraq was perceived to beneficial in winning support from people who only casually follow the news. But I also have looked at things from the perspective of his supporters and I do understand how they can reasonably believe that 9/11 "changed everything" (an admittedly meaningless phrase in and of itself) and made the invasion of Iraq a good idea. I can understand their view as reasonable while still disagreeing with their conclusion.

[ QUOTE ]


I'd hate to see you get too bogged down in details, as empirical evidence which helps form the foundation of the premises that aid in making our arguments compelling can often get in the way of a nice, opinion based rant - but just humor those irrational Bush haters like me and the rest of the resident MoveOn crowd.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope I improved my tone in this post and did a better job explaining my perspective. In the end, much of what I say is merely opinion and judgment. But I have tried to outline to some extent how I formed those opinions and judgments and what criteria I try to use.

Lastly, it may be that we simply don't disagree as much as I originally thought. What disappionted me in your initial post was your summary of his speech, particularly the bit about repeating 9/11 a bunch of times. He didn't do that, and it is easy for anyone who supports Bush to see your post, remark "He just doesn't get what Bush was saying" and dismiss your criticisms. I don't want to see that happen because I suspect that your judgment about Iraq is probably better than most. (I have only seen a limited amount of data regarding your positions on Iraq, so that's the strongest endorsement I can give you.)

Sincerely and respectfully,
Mike

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Grave danger is not the same as imminent? Keep it up right-winger.

[/ QUOTE ]
No it's not.

grave2 Audio pronunciation of "grave" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (grv)
adj. grav·er, grav·est

1. Requiring serious thought; momentous: a grave decision in a time of crisis.
2. Fraught with danger or harm: a grave wound.

vs.

im·mi·nent Audio pronunciation of "imminent" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-nnt)
adj.

About to occur; impending: in imminent danger.

I can't help it if your reading comprehension and vocabulary suck.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Grave danger is not the same as imminent? Keep it up right-winger.

[/ QUOTE ]
No it's not.

grave2 Audio pronunciation of "grave" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (grv)
adj. grav·er, grav·est

1. Requiring serious thought; momentous: a grave decision in a time of crisis.
2. Fraught with danger or harm: a grave wound.

vs.

im·mi·nent Audio pronunciation of "imminent" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-nnt)
adj.

About to occur; impending: in imminent danger.

I can't help it if your reading comprehension and vocabulary suck.

[/ QUOTE ]

BC,

I agree with you that 'grave' has a significantly different meaning than 'imminent'. However, I think if you replace the word 'immediate' in Analyst's original post with 'grave' or 'serious', then his criticism is still valid. Saddam had the potential for becoming a grave threat, but at the time of the invasion it was pretty clear that he was not a grave threat.

So I am not here to dismiss you as a right-winger and will happily concede your point on vocabulary. But I think that you (and many others -- of all points of view) have been distracted a bit by the phrasing of the argument. Although Analyst may have phrased the argument less than perfectly by implying that Bush said something that he didn't quite say, his post is really on the mark.

Cheers,
Mike

[BCPVP]

I think this going to come down to semantics.

[ QUOTE ]
Saddam had the potential for becoming a grave threat, but at the time of the invasion it was pretty clear that he was not a grave threat.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think Saddam still constituted a grave threat. We hadn't lifted the sanctions and still had the No-Fly Zone in effect. We now know he was trying to get these lifted and was bribing U.N. officials to do so. With a common enemy in the U.S., al Qaeda would be an attractive ally. This will come down to what we consider a "grave" threat and it sounds like that debate will be fruitless here.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
With a common enemy in the U.S., al Qaeda would be an attractive ally.

[/ QUOTE ]

The US has many enemies. Not all of them are natural allies.

I still have difficulty believing Osama Bin Laden/Al-Qaeda would see much appeal in alligning itself with the secular, Ba'thist regime that formerly controlled Iraq; neither's interests were much furthered by such an allignment (specifically Saddam -- what exactly did he have to gain from such an alliance? He surely would have much to lose, as a large Al-Qaeda presence in Ba'thist Iraq would have provided a serious competitor to his regime). Even a nominal or superficial alliance between the two presented a serious threat to the Ba'th party -- not only internally, but internationally, too (keeping in mind that the US decided to invade even WITHOUT strong links between Saddam and 9-11/Al-Qaeda).

Surely, Al-Qaeda could have used a haven to continue its operations after US operations in Afghanistan; however, there was certainly no reason for Al-Qaeda to believe Iraq would fulfill those needs anyway.

IMO, there's not much compelling evidence that Iraq and Al-Qaeda were linked; and I see no reason to believe they were somehow natural allies fated to unite, either.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this going to come down to semantics.

[ QUOTE ]
Saddam had the potential for becoming a grave threat, but at the time of the invasion it was pretty clear that he was not a grave threat.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think Saddam still constituted a grave threat. We hadn't lifted the sanctions and still had the No-Fly Zone in effect. We now know he was trying to get these lifted and was bribing U.N. officials to do so. With a common enemy in the U.S., al Qaeda would be an attractive ally. This will come down to what we consider a "grave" threat and it sounds like that debate will be fruitless here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps the debate will come down to semantics, a judgment as to what constitutes grave. I agree with you that Saddam posed a threat to our interests at the time, and that we had tough times ahead in trying to maintain deterrance against Saddam as the international resolve to contain him was eroding and likely would have collapsed when it became clear that he did not have stockpiles of WMD. It would have been imperative that we maintained some way of monitoring his actions, so that he would not be successful in restarting a weapons program as he intended to do so.

I think DV has explained well the problems with assuming a Saddam and al Qaeda alliance, so I won't address that point further.

However, I think the threat of his restarting his weapons program -- which was real -- is not serious enough on its own to merit the costs of a major invasion. There is a huge difference between an intention to restart a weapons program and a developing nuclear program, for example. (By the way, the latter currently exist in some states that we would much rather they did not, as you well know.)

At the time, we could not be certain whether Saddam had stockpiled weapons and could restart a program quickly or whether his programs had been badly damaged and would need major work to be restarted. That is why the inspections could have been so valuable to us: they suggested at the point of invasion exactly what we ended up finding out later at a much greater cost, namely that Saddam's weapons programs had largely been decimated and he was unsuccessful in secretly stockpiling weapons, but he had attempted to preserve knowledge of the processes to restart a program later.

So I am not sure that debate has to be fruitless, even though we may never reach full agreement. I agree that Saddam posed a threat, even though I may not agree that he threatened us in all the ways you do (the possibility of a substantial alliance with al Qaeda seemed minimal to me then and still does now). I was open at the time to the possibility that war with Iraq might become a strategic necessity, and that Saddam's atrocities and failure to comply with international standards gave us justification for war. I just don't think that the conditions at the time made war the best option. I felt the same way at the time, though I was more open to the possibility that the president knew things that the media had not reported.