An incredible and utterly false assertion--I hesitate to call it dishonest--has been floating around over the last few weeks. It's a doozy too: it's the bizarre notion that Bush told the American people that WMDs were the primary reason to go to Iraq.
After reading the dishonest distortions in the news lately, and after reading good bits of well-written but inaccurate analysis, and wrongheaded second-guessing, coming not just out of webloggers but also New York Times columnists like Thomas Friedman, it seems like I have to say some obvious things that too many people have, well, forgotten or something.
For those of us who were actually here, and haven't got a bad case of "I'm-mad-at-Bush-amnesia," here's a quick recap of almost an entire year of history:
All throughout 2002 we all watched as the administration brought reason after reason for this war before us. Human rights were mentioned, often. So was the need for democratic reform. There was an attempted assassination of a former President. There was Saddam's violation of his surrender terms. There was Saddam's firing on our forces in the No Fly Zones. There were violations of sanctions. There were efforts to develop Weapons of Mass Destruction, there was the refusal to cooperate with weapons inspectors, and the UN's acknowledgement that he wasn't cooperating. There were ties to terrorist groups.
There was also a lot of vague talk about "strategic interests," too, which was never spelled out explicitely, but which an awful lot of us took to mean this: there are people covertly supporting terrorism over there. We need to show them that we are to be feared, and that certain relationships need to change.
Furthermore, I remember very well the Bush critics who complained about all this. Every time a new reason was brought up, they claimed that the Bushies were "lying again." Or that Bush was "incompetent" because he couldn't stick to one story. The refrain was, "Every week it's a new reason! Could that be because there's no good reason?!"
I even remember when administration said, quite freely, that there were lots of reasons. They explained that they were mentioning different reasons in different contexts. But some silly wags suggested that this was "Clintonian spin" and even "Orwellian."
Remember that? Bringing up different reasons in different contexts was being called dishonest. Talk about not being able to win? Yeesh.
To most of us it was pretty obvious that there were a lot of reasons. Because, you know, there were. When you've got a lot of complicated reasons to do something very, very serious, that's what reasonable people do: they bring up the reasons one at a time and discuss them. Some will be stronger than others. There will be some debate, some give and take. Everyone involved will weigh all of it as best they can, and come to a conclusion.
The funny part? Everyone I know realizes there were multiple reasons to go to Iraq. Yet now some are acting as if that didn't happen. Well this debate happened gang. As Bob Dole would say: I know, I was there. So were most of the rest of us.
The debate ended on October 2nd, 2002, when the authorization for war was finally granted to the President. It was granted in the name of the people of the United States, by their duly appointed elected representatives.
If you bother to read that war resolution, you'll find it all there. His violation of his surrender terms. His firing on our forces. His refusal to cooperate with weapons inspectors. His ties to terrorist groups. The long-term threat to our strategic interests if we left him in power. All of that and more is still right there in the resolution. It's in plain black and white, and not particularly convoluted.
Our duly elected representatives, by an overwhelming majority, agreed (with the majority of Americans, if polls are to be believed) that the weight of all the evidence, all the reasons, justified war. The finished product of an entire year of debate that, apparently, James at Outside the Beltway, Rick DeMent, Ara Rubyan, and countless others barely remember.
So I'm happy to take this opportunity to remind them. Then I'll remind them of what happened after America agreed to let the President go to war.
After being given permission to go to war, as the Constitution requires, the President made the decision to go to the UN for further support instead of rushing straight into action.
Everyone with me so far on this? I hope so. The whole UN thing happend after we gave him the go ahead to do whatever he felt was necessary to take out Saddam Hussein.
Remember, too, how he said over and over again that he needed us all to be patient? I hope you do. Because it's, y'know, what happened.
So after getting our permission to take us into war, the President went to the UN. He did it on the advice of allies, like Britain's Tony Blair. He got similar advice from many elder statesmen: former Secretaries of State. Democratic and Republican members of the House and Senate. Advisors like Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice.
Most of these people--the ones he listened to--argued that if we went to the UN we would be in a stronger position than if we didn't. They said we would gain valuable time for our forces to build up. They also said that it would gain us allies. In fact, what many of them said was this:
If you go to the UN, even if you don't get what you want, many countries will respect you for at least trying. Many have even said they'll join us if we at least try. Some have said that if we do, they'll be with us one way or the other all the way to the end. They just want us to try.
Once again: that's documented. It's what happened.
So we went to the UN. Only we knew at the UN that human rights wouldn't push them to action--it rarely does. We knew that America's strategic interests wouldn't concern them. We certainly knew they wouldn't like most of our other reasons.
But WMD's, and Saddam's refusal to cooperate with inspections: that they would have to take seriously. Because that's all the UN ever took seriously. So we went before the UN and made the case that Saddam was hiding illegal weapons and weapons programs, and was refusing to cooperate.
It wasn't hard. Because their own weapons inspectors agreed that this was so.
Still, the UN went against us. But exactly as so many advisors predicted, every week that we argued before the UN, new countries came on board. Every week, more said they would side with us. Countries like France and Germany were especially embarassed as formerly repressed Eastern European countries came out in loud solidarity with us--and some of those countries even lended us troops on the ground when fighting started. (Thanks, Poland!)
Going to the UN gave us time to build up our forces, and gained us tons of allies. Most of them were allies that we did not have in October of 2002. Or they were allies who said they'd help us, but only if we went to the UN first.
Once again: this is what happened. I know, I was there. So were you, even if you seem to have amnesia.
Now the spin is that we had an "intelligence failure?" It was the UN that said Saddam wasn't cooperating, and the UN that said Saddam probably still had Weapons of Mass Destruction.
The President got our permission to go to war, based on dozens of reasons. After he got our go-ahead, he made a play to get some allies by going to the UN, and came up with some evidence that he hoped would help win them over. That's it. So how much "investigation" do you really want?
Let me ask you a counter-question: why shouldn't I believe that this won't be just another drawn-out, frustrating, years-long witch hunt like the Whitewater investigations against Clinton, or the Iran/Contra witch hunts that went on for ten years before that? Why shouldn't I believe this will be another endless, fruitless quest for answers that can never satisfy anybody?
Indeed, why should I not believe it'll be just one long "When did you stop beating your wife, Mr. Bush" game?
Because if so many folks seem unable to remember that entire year when the President gave us dozens of reasons to go to war, what on Earth should I expect them to do with an endless open-ended quest to "find out how this happened?"
I'm not interested in any gigantic fishing expeditions, people. The responsibility for proving that there were or were not Weapons of Mass Destruction fell to the United Nations and Saddam Hussein. They failed to prove his innocence. We had our reasons, some of which we gave the UN and some of which we didn't.
Arguments finished, allies secured, we then went and freed the Iraqi people from a monster.
That's what happened. It's what the history books will record. I just wonder where some of you were during that whole thing. I really do.
Okay, I'll bite. I had this same discussion with a Bush-hater today and I'm going to tell you pretty much the same thing I told her.
I think you are correct in the assertion that WMD's were just one of many reasons - many of them altruistic in nature - on why we went to Iraq. However, to claim that it was not a primary reason is nothing more than spin.
Take all of the reasons and steps that the adminstration gave and had to step through, most of which you have cited here. There are a few others - one could throw in the billions of dollars of oil that Iraq sits on (keeping in mind the billions of dollars is the focal point, not the oil) and the fact that at the end of the day there was no one and nothing that could really stop us.
At the end of the equation, we have three deal breakers -- three primary reasons, any one of which were they absent would have made war much, much, much more unlikely. They are: the belief Iraq was manufacturing quantities of WMD's illicitly, the belief that the Iraqi government may have ultimately supplied terrorists at some future date with WMD's and the simple fact that there was nothing and no one that could really stop us.
Apply all of the rest of your altruistic rationale to any other hotspot in the rest of the world and then test it against those three things I just outlined. Let's pick four to look at that are in the tops of today's headlines: the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cuba, North Korea and Iran.
DRC: A major catastrophe that is the follow-up to the Rwanda massacres and genocide is going on in the jungles of the DRC. What are we doing about it? Nothing. There's nothing there that can really stop us from doing anything about it, but the parties in the DRC conflict do not have WMD's or major ties to intercontinental terrorism and don't seem to be developing them. There's even potential greed factor (oil, uranium, diamonds) involved and thus is a good refutation that Iraq was purely about oil or money.
Cuba: A train wreck that has been going on for decades. We can fix Cuba by force if we want to, there's nothing and no one to stop us. But again, no WMD's, no major ties to intercontinental terrorism. Cuba remains festering.
DPRK: A little different scenario - they are developing WMD's and they have ties to intercontinental terrorists, having provided the Islamic terrorist insurgency (the MNLF) in the Phillipines with aid in the past. But the deal breaker here is that China could (and has done in the past) throw a hell of a monkey wrench into the mix, both on a militaristic and economic front. China likes to have that buffer between it and the overly-capitalistic (in China's view) ROK, which is why the administration has been pursuing a "regional solution" to the problem. Ideally, we'd rather just have China invade the DPRK. Strategically, we lose nothing in this exchange, and China loses a lot less than if we marched across the DMZ and up to the Yalu.
And Iran. It's hard to believe that if we were thinking of invading anywhere it could be any country but Iran. The trifecta is almost complete, WMD's, terrorist ties, and not a lot stands in our way once Iraq is completely secure. But take away any of those three items, and there is no chance of invading Iran.
Trying to downplay the importance of the belief that Iraq had or was developing WMD's at this stage is disingenuous, at best. No war has ever been fought for primarily altruistic reasons. This one was no exception.
I don't think the question is whether or not the WMD issue should be followed up. It should be, of course. We need to know what happened to them. Were they destroyed earlier? Were they moved? They of course existed, the question is where they are now.
The point being made, I believe, is that many are attempting to hang the President over this, and unless something completely off course from what we are seeing comes out, then there are just no grounds for it.
Personally, I don't think this will do much to Bush politically. My concern is Blair. How will this affect him in the British eye. All 'They are our best friends! Great people, those Brits!' aside, it is known that a larger portion of the British public was... less convinced of the nescessity of the conflict than Americans. Unlike in America, a major selling point in the United Kingdom was the legalistics surrounding the WMD issue. There is even less case to be made there, but it is an area many are willing to convieniently alter in order to persue their goals. I am, admittedly unfamiliar with the nature of British politics, but I have a sneaking suspicion that just the allegation of this is all that many need in the U.K. to destroy Blair. Even if the allegations of lies and coverups are completely unfounded.
While it will probably just become a popular urban myth that Bush Lied(tm) in the US, and thereby an annoyance that is easily dismissed, it could be a real issue on the other side of the Atlantic.
Dean,
I agree with most of your analyis above. My arguments in the posts you link above are actually quite narrow:
1. I think our failure to find huge stashes of WMD thus far is embarrassing. Not shameful. Not proof that Bush and Co. were lying. Not proof that the war was wrongheaded. Just embarrasing. We went to the world saying, essentially, that we know Saddam had them and using that as the main justification before the UN. We also argued all sorts of other things, including the undeniable fact that Saddam was flouting an endness number of UN resolutions; but the fact that he was a threat because of WMD was always the most emphasized point.
2. My argument on the UN is also narrow. Clearly, getting the imprimatur of the UN is always a good thing because it provides legitimacy for our action in certain circles. But I believe we undermined our legitimacy by going to the UN and insisting on continuing to work within that rubric when it became clear we weren't going to get the support we wanted. By going to war without specific UN authorization to do so, while claiming we were doing it to support UN resolutions, made us look like scofflaws.
I supported the war and still think it was worthwhile. I merely wish that we'd emphasized Saddam's ties to terrorism more and WMD less.
I'm with James on that; it was actually the far stronger argument. However, in going to the UN the Administration quite logically chose to emphasize the issues on which the Security Council had already established a long record of tough talk -- on the quite logical but futile hope that the UN would back up its tough talk with action.
I don't think Chirac would have been moved by the ties-to-terrorism tack any more than he was by WMDs.
A comprehensive list, but you missed one of the reasons:
"After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."
GWB 9-26-2002
link
Chad sort of misses the point that Dean was trying to make regarding the US debate vs. the UN debate. The points being made before the UN were more strictly legalistic: that Saddam was in material breach of the original Gulf War I surrender terms as well as the numerous resolutions that followed. These resolutions were primarily focused on the issue of WMD's. Thus any "legal" framework for an invasion had to involve charges of WMD production. We could not go to the UN and simply argue that it was in our national interest to remove a thug and tyrant who may try to attack us. No one at the UN is *cares* about the US national interest.
Chad does make some very good points about the limits of our willingness to intervene in other countries but, again, he misses the broader context. The primary ideological threat to the West today comes from radical Islam. Any way you look at it, the DRC and Cuba simply don't have any overlap or interaction with Islamic terrorism. These countries receive so little attention simply because their only claim is a stricly moral one. Like it or not, that in itself is not enough. It may be an *important* in our decision to go to war but it is not sufficient in and of itself.
North Korea and Iran *are* being dealt with. It is, however, foolish to assert that whatever approach we take in one situation (Iraq) should apply equally in all of the others. Iran and NK may well succumb to a far less flashy application of American power. In addition, there is simply no legal, international framework under which an invasion of these countries can be "legally" justified. You may argue that the UN's unwillingness to follow through on the clear implications of its earlier resolutions amounted to a removal of the legal foundation for the Iraqi war. But Bush and others could argue, with just as much logical consistency, that the legal framework already existed an not additional resolutions were needed. Nothing of the kind exists for Iran and NK.
Jeez, Barney, if that's the best you can do, try cutting back on the wood alcohol.
In the last few days there has been a lot of discussion about whether POTUS lied about the existence of WMD in order to justify a pre-emptive attack on Iraq.
The issue is important because the doctrine of pre-emption (invented by Bush for this war) requires that the attacking country be sure beyond the shadow of a doubt that their enemy has WMD and will use them yesterday.
It was built on valid precedent. Sometimes (remember the Six-Day War?) pre-emptive attack is justified and required for the survival of the state.
But we're talking high stakes here, people. Some day Pakistan may fry India ( or vice-versa) by invoking the doctrine of pre-emption. We, ahem, have to set a good example here, a sterling precedent. We have to set a high standard.
You can't pull the trigger and then, later, say "oops, we trusted bad intel." The doctrine doesn't cover "oopsy-daisy, we meant well." There's too much at stake.
Let me be clear about one thing. I supported the war then and now based on another Bush Doctrine: if you are supporting terrorists, then you are a terrorist and will be dealt with accordingly. Saddam's links to Arafat were clear then and now. It was enough to satisfy me.
But this POTUS invented (and used as his primary reason for invasion) a new doctrine which carries with it the responsibility of determining beyond the shadow of a doubt that your enemy is about to attack you with WMD.
So I'd say this to the administration and it's supporters who are downplaying the argument that WMD was the primary reason for triggering the new doctrine of pre-emption: You're being disiningenuous amnesiacs.
Note: John Dean (not Howard Dean) has compiled a handy list of POTUS' declarations on this matter:
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
United Nations Address
September 12, 2002
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
Radio Address
October 5, 2002
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."
"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003
Disingenuous indeed. Once again, I ask do you remember the smallpox scare, not to mention duct tape?
"It is, however, foolish to assert that whatever approach we take in one situation (Iraq) should apply equally in all of the others." Could this be because there is a more level playing field between the US and North Korea?
And this: "The primary ideological threat to the West today comes from radical Islam." I would say we face much greater risks from radical Christians and the gutting of the Constitution.
WMDs were indeed stated as the primary reason for this war. Ara has done a nice job of articulating why this issue is so very important. From what I'm seeing on various boards, however, I predict a reopening of Zippergate in a desperate attempt to change the subject as quickly as possible. CYA.
I dont believe the American ppl were very supportive of the US government as it stormed its way to Baghdad. Neither was the rest of the world. its clear that the hawks had gone in to satisfy their own selfish interests. I don't think that the UN should ever be brought into arguments against or for someone after all who ever listens to their plea. All accusations levelled against Iraq have only violated UN resolutions. Didnt America also violate the Un resolutions by attackin Iraq, without peaceful settlement.
Also, if America finds terrorists to be such threats why doesnt it go into palestine and bring down the hamas. But no, they'll let the violence continue.
This confirms the view that American government only looks out for its own benefit and that of its capitalist mentality.
It seems to me that even though Dean is largely correct in his assertions, especially when appended with points such as James Joyners, that the kind of view point put forward by Ara and others is going to be with us for a while. This is the closest thing the DNC has yet as a handle to "get Bush" with and the James Carville types are going to worry it to death. I think some evidence will emerge but, but any lack of significant WMD's will be used as a political wedge regardless of the actual arguments of the invasion.
Barney, Get a sense of humor. You, Maureen Dowd, and Michael Moore are probably the only ones that would take dubya's attempt at levity seriously.
Ashdod,
This confirms the view that American government only looks out for its own benefit and that of its capitalist mentality.
I've elected the government of this country with the intent of them looking out for this countries own benefit. Thank you for letting me know that our system is working.
Rodney Dill
Ara writes:
Actually, it requires no such thing -- you can't ever have intelligence "beyond the shadow of a doubt." All the pre-emption "doctrine" requires is that our intelligence services believe that another country poses a danger to our interests, or will do so in the immediate future. Iraq's WMD program certainly fit that bill, and as Dean clearly outlined above, not even the UN weapons inspectors disagreed with this. All the arguments were over whether Iraq should be disarmed through inspections, or invaded.
I've got to say, this is one of the most annoying arguments I've seen presented, here and elsewhere. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the United States is not a role model for others. If Pakistan ever has a chance to "fry India," it will take it, without bothering to ask "What Would America Do?" Aggression and invasion precedes the existence of the U.S. by a couple of millenia; we're not setting any precedents here, and no one in the future will give a damn about how we handle problems.
I begin to understand Mr. Esmay's "amnesia" comments. The President didn't "invent" any kind of new doctrine here; pre-emption is a centuries-old concept. Really, people, history begins a little earlier than 2002. Just because prior to the Iraq conflict you went around believing that the world is like a giant courtroom, doesn't make it so.
It was one of many, and the decisive one for me. And no one really disputed the WMD's existence, not even the UN or the French. The uncertainty over whether or not Iraq is developing WMD was and is enough for me to consider the war justified -- the risk of Hussein with nukes was unacceptable.
Sorry, Ara, but all your premises are wrong. We do not need absolute certainty, and we certainly need not be concerned with setting precedents. The interactions between nations do not happen according to some abstract legal framework, no matter how much you would love to believe otherwise.
biscuit crumbles:
Partly, because we relied on the UN and the oh-so-precious "international community" to make sure that NK wouldn't go nuclear. Naturally, they failed, and it did.
Love the "level playing field" bit. Hooray for equality between the U.S., and a Stalinist outfit that starves and murders its own populace. It's all a game, see -- the important thing is that those evil Americans don't have an advantage! Balance, man, it's all about balance.
"The issue is important because the doctrine of pre-emption (invented by Bush for this war) . . . "
Nope. Pre-emptive war has always been part of US foreign policy, as well as part of foreign policy of every successful nation. Clinton mentioned pre-emptive war specifically in language that one could mistake for Bush's if one didn't know the source.
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/articles/02-03-03/saddam.htm
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/15/32648.shtml
Also, the US is the only nation to even try to get UN approval for a war.
ashdod claims:
This isn't a matter of what you believe. The polls showed the American public in favor of the war, at least 2-to-1. They are still in favor, even if it turns out that there were no weapons of mass destruction.
This is true. And irrelevant.
I'm one of "the hawks," and I guess insofar as I wanted to be sure that there was no Arab regime making nuclear or other WMD, I guess I supported the war to satisfy my own selfish interests.
I don't either. The UN has neither moral nor legal authority. It's just a bunch of worthless diplomats generating hot air, most from governments that no one should listen to in the first place.
Not that it matters, but since you asked: no, it did not. There was no UN resolution demanding that the U.S. not attack Iraq, and in any case, only Security Council resolutions are binding. Iraq violated those; the U.S. did not.
Because Hamas doesn't threaten the United States, at least for the moment. We're not about to go policing every hellhole. The Israelis are more than capable of controlling Hamas on their own.
This is just dumb. There is nothing the Americans can do in "Palestine"; we aren't omnipotent, you know. The only option would be a permanent occupation of the West Bank and Gaza or the transfer of Arabs there to other lands. The Israelis can do this just fine on their own.
I certainly hope so. As Rodney Dill says above, that's why we elect them.
Nough crumbles: "Love the "level playing field" bit. Hooray for equality between the U.S., and a Stalinist outfit that starves and murders its own populace. It's all a game, see -- the important thing is that those evil Americans don't have an advantage!"
Maybe it's about trying to justify a war by making outrageous claims, terrifying the public with the smallpox and duct tape hoaxes, etc., then waging a war with a couple hundred thousand troops (to the tune of how many billion?), and decimating a country because you know you can.
Wouldn't want to try that with North Korea, would we? And why do you think that is?
"I would say we face much greater risks from radical Christians and the gutting of the Constitution."
Yeah, lots of radical Christians flying airplanes into buildings, blowing themselves up in crowded restaurants, eviscerating women's genitalia and forcing them to wear bags over their heads, massacring people of other religions in Africa, destroying synagogues and Jewish cemeteries in France, England, Tunisia . . .
Look, I don't like the radical Christian right any more than you do - I don't like totalitarian religions with dreams of world domination (including Stalinism). But your assessment of the relative world threat posed by these two fundamentalisms is ludicrous.
Dean, just FYI - your comment form doesn't remember my info.
1. Dean - Mind if I repost that in its entirety somewhere else?
2. Chad - We are not going to fix the problems in Cuba because John Kennedy swore an oath that we would not invade Cuba. (That's why the Bay of Pigs imbroglio happened. We sent the catspaw instead of the cat.)
3. Barney - Apparently the depiction of you as borderline retarded on The Simpsons is an accurate one.
4. Ara - All your John Dean quotes entirely miss the point that the entire world thought Saddam had WMD. The fact that we have yet to find them is really not significant, there are over 1000 suspected WMD sites, and less than 10% of them have been searched so far.
5. biscuit - And if WMDs were stated as a primary reason, what of it? They were stated as a primary reason by the Clinton administration in 1998 as well. If "Bush Lied", then Clinton did as well. So did Hans Blix and countless other people.
6. ashdod - I dont believe the American ppl were very supportive of the US government as it stormed its way to Baghdad.
Polls taken at the time do not support your belief. You can believe the moon is made of green cheese, if you like. The world doesn't care that you are delusional, the world is what it is. Cope.
Clinton didn't invade Iraq. Bush did. Interesting how the conversation is increasingly turning to blaming Clinton for Bush's actions.
Yehudit, guess you forgot about OKC. And I suppose you believe it's the Islamists who are currently gutting the Constitution.
biscuit, you dolt, no one is "blaming Clinton for Bush's actions."
What they are trying to do is get into your skull the elemental fact that there were a lot of people -who had access to intelligence- that thought that Iraq did indeed possess WMDs. Bush was not alone.
If Bush lied, then they all lied. But, oddly enough, I don't see the headlines "Clinton lied about WMDs", or "Blinx lied about WMDs", or "The United Nations decieved the world about the existence of WMDs in Iraq."
Nope. Just pissing and moaning about Bush.
And try to come up with some sane claims: the Oklahoma bombing was not demonstrably the work of "radical Christians", but of one man, and I haven't seen hide nor hair of any other terrorist acts by those crazy christers ever since.
And while I'm not at all happy with some of the things passed into law (I have a much lower opinion of most of the PATRIOT act than Dean does) I also have enough historical perspective to not be too worried yet. Go check out some of the foolishness committed during the War of 1812; much worse than today. and we seem to have survived the last 200 years quite nicely.
biscuit writes:
I had no idea that Iraq was decimated, that the smallpox threat was a "hoax," or that the only reason Iraq was invaded was just because we could. (Can't we also invade Mexico? Or Belgium?)
Because at the moment, North Korea can't expand, is surrounded by large nuclear powers, and invading it would be extremely costly? (Incidentally, we could invade North Korea, too. Most of the cost would actually be borne by South Koreans. There just isn't any need to do that. By contrast, there was a need to invade Iraq, and the cost was far lower.)
Someone's having severe reading comprehension problems. Clinton wasn't being "blamed" for the invasion of Iraq (though he did bomb Baghdad a time or two). The point was that the Iraqi WMD weren't just a hoax of Bush's making, which has been in evidence since the first Gulf War. So if the WMD were a "hoax," that means everyone from Clinton to Blix to Chirac was responsible -- most of them before Bush even ran for President.
I had no idea that McVeigh was a fundamentalist Christian. All this time, I thought he was simply an anti-federal nutcase. At any rate, his particular movement commited one successful act of terror, and was largely decimated afterwards. If you honestly think they are a bigger threat than fundamentalist Islam (which has millions of adherents and multiple government sponsors, and has invaded every country on this earth), then you really have a warped view of the world.
While no fan of the Patriot Acts, I've yet to see the Constitution get gutted. Even if we grant that absurd premise, I still don't see how that's worse than having more mass murders at the hands of deranged Allah worshippers.
...oh, I forgot -- it's about Bush somehow.
biscuit, you dolt, no one is "blaming Clinton for Bush's actions."
Oh really? Certainly looks that way to me. Also looks like an excellent way to deflect attention from the actions of the CURRENT president and his administration, while ensuring the CURRENT president and his administration cannot be held accountable for their actions ... because somehow it becomes CLINTON'S fault.
You knucklehead. Take that! And that! And that!
Wow. Between Ashdod's disbelief in the American support for the invasion of Iraq, and Biscuit's seeing attacks on Clinton where there are none, it's getting hard to find rational opposition around here...
'oddly enough, I don't see the headlines "Clinton lied about WMDs" '
"If "Bush Lied", then Clinton did as well. "
Yup, all in my imagination. When playing the Clinton card doesn't work, question the sanity of the poster. *eye roll*
Our government would not be doing its job correctly if it enforced on itself treating all "problem" countries the same. Economic sanctions and political pressure have a much greater chance of working in an environment such as North Korea where they are not sitting on billions of dollars of oil. Though, past history probably sides against the possibility a diplomatic approach may still work there.
Biscuit, You blew it, while "bisuit crumbles" is a good play on words, "Nough crumbles" isn't.
"Nough said", however, would be.
Thank you for adding your comments above Mr. E. Nough, based on your current viewpoints I haven't had nearly you of you.
'Biscuit, You blew it, while "bisuit crumbles" is a good play on words, "Nough crumbles" isn't.
"Nough said", however, would be."
Darn! Back to the coffee pot ...
Biscuit, you poor thing, those two comments aren't an attack on Clinton, they show that Clinton agreed with Bush about Iraq's WMD.
Wild Monk,
Thank you for your kind response, but I don't really think I missed the point regarding the dichotomy between the goals of the UN and US, because that dichotomy comes to nothing more than covering our asses. At the end of the day if we want to project military force somewhere, the UN isn't going to stop us from doing so. It was a factor, but it wasn't a primary factor, and really was subordinate to the whole WMD issue.
Further, I don't think I missed the broader context, I just simply framed it in the more vague term of "intercontinental terrorism".
Finally, North Korea and Iran are being dealt with, true, but that type of dealing with an issue and the dealing with an issue that involved actually invading another country are not analogous. By the way you phrase it, what we were doing before the invasion of Iraq was dealing with them -- the same way we currently deal with North Korea, Iran and Cuba.
Gary,
I don't for an instant think that an oath made by the long-dead John Kennedy would stop George Bush -- or any other president -- from invading Cuba if he really wanted to invade Cuba.
Haws, you poor thing, you seem to have *missed* that nough characterized those statements as attacks. Not me.
You forgot this reason.
Saddam is B. Grumble's Hero & mentor. That alone is more than than enough reason to get rid of Saddam. ANTHING that irritates Grumble is good enough reason to do it.
Buscuit, so you weren't complaining that Clinton was being blamed for Bush's actions? That's funny, since it's exactly what you wrote above.
Excuse me?! You're the one who gave them as counter-examples, after I said that there were no attacks to begin with.
(Not that they were valid counter-examples, since neither statement was meant to impugn Clinton, but rather validate Bush. But since in your warped little world Bush can never be validated, any comparison of Bush with Clinton becomes an attack on the latter. It's quite a fascinating form of begging the question, actually.)
Just in case it's really to hard to understand: Clinton, Gore, Chirac, and Blix all believed that Iraq had WMD, as did Bush. They all stated so publicly. So if Bush lied, all the rest of them did, too.
Since you have trouble with if-then logic, I'll follow it through to the conclusion for you: Clinton, Gore, Chirac, and Blix were not lying about Iraq's WMD, and therefore neither was Bush. Bush just happened to disagree with some of them as to how to take away those weapons -- but not over whether the weapons existed.
You're not insane, biscuit. You're just dumb.
"Yehudit, guess you forgot about OKC. And I suppose you believe it's the Islamists who are currently gutting the Constitution. "
If you actually read my post, you'll notice I said "relative threat."
And no, Ashcroft is not "gutting the Constitution." I think he wants to, but I doubt he'll succeed. Congresspeople on both sides of the aisle are mobilizing against him - you might want to support their efforts.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/2020/conservatives_patriot030312.html
I agree, E. He's just dumb.
Timothy McVeigh was not a fundamentalist Christian. His only known association with Christians of any stripe is:
1) To bomb said Federal building in protest over the government's destruction of the Davidian compound on the anniversary of that event.
2) A meeting with a Catholic priest shortly before his execution.
Many Christians and non-Christians think that Waco was poorly handled. Which camp McVeigh was in is a good question, but I'm afraid we cannot ask him directly.
INSTALANCHE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's like the Slashdot effect, for blogs!
I just basically went over all the gyrations in this thread with a friend this morning via email, only to hit the InstaMan and find out that the party has entered full swing over at Dean's!!
It's like someone declared 'shenannigan' on South Park, and has devolved into a blatant partisan pissing match across the entire Net, and here Dean is trying to keep things rational in his comments (Way to do Dean!)
I think the history books are gonna say "Gulf War I was ended badly like WWI, everyone now knonws it was a mistake to leave the Baathists in power, hundreds of thousands died in mass graves as a result, those crazy Arabs gave the US an excuse to end the 12 years of hide and seek madness with 9/11".
End of Story...all the dickering now is an attempt to hold onto some rationalization for being a Useful Idiot, and try to triangulate the Dems way into winning in 2004.
Bah.
This Washington Post article was published immediately before the most recent onslaught of WMD accusations, and bemoans the fact that top Democrats (along with 80% of the population) were not at Bush's throat on this issue. An interesting read, given the subsequent ignition of a sputtering flame of protest that some are trying to fan into a nice roasting fire.
Dear Mister biscuit:
Your vicious response has left me No Alternative!
YO MOMMA! Ha! Whaddya think about that?
But you're still wrong about the Clinton/Bush thing. I'm not using one to blame the other. My point was (and I believe a couple of other folks have posted in agreement) that several otherwise trustworthy public leaders have said that they believed that Iraq had WMDs.
Bush said "they have nasty stuff". We don't find it. Ergo, he was lying.
Clinton said "they have nasty stuff". We don't find it. Ergo, he was wasn't lying. Eh?
Er, inconsistancy alert here! (BTW I could have said Blix, UN, or several other leaders, but since we're talking about Clinton)
Why is it that Bush must be lying after making his claim, but Clinton musn't be lying? Both made the same claim, both face the fact that we haven't found much yet...
Oh, what's that? Clinton didn't know any better? How do you know that Bush didn't know any better either? That, perhaps, both men followed flawed, but plausible, intelligence?
You (nor anyone else) has yet to provide any evidence that Bush lied. I've nailed Ara on this several times, but he keeps changing his line of attack, instead of answering me.
You can prove anything you want with selective quoting.
I'm beginning to think the great majority of people who claim that Bush is lying are completely ignorant of just how intelligence analysis works. They've watched too many movies where the chief of the "agency" briefs the good guys with 100% perfect info.
You know, I just had a disturbing thought about a hypothetical situation.
Suposing we get into a war with North Korea in the future. In the prior years there is much hustle and bustle about the threat that the DPRK's nuclear proliferation presents to the world. A war in the region is sparked because of a tough stance by a particular world party in relation to the mentioned nuclear threat. After the war, there are no nuclear weapons to be found. At that time, will there be a "[Insert name of gutsy leader here] Lied!" movement in the opposing political circle?
It may be an indirect ad hominem suggestion, or maybe a strawman of my own making, but it *is* a valid question, because I think it calls into question the way people will revise history to make the present more convenient for them.
E. Nough, Yehudit, et. al.:
I appreciate your comments about the tradition of pre-emptive attacks. You know what? I'm willing to adjust my thinking based on your remarks.
So, upon reflection, I'd like to point out the distinction between "pre-emptive attack" and "preventive attack."
The former is accepted by American tradition but the latter is not.
If you'd like further clarification, I'm game. If you'd like to debate that, I'm game.
Thanks for stimulating my thinking on the matter.
Don't you remember the reluctant general act that Bush was playing? Right up until his git-outta-Dodge speech, he was publicly claiming he hadn't made up his mind about invasion. Sure it was a bald-faced lie. But this was the situation in which Congress voted -- not "for war" but for a viable threat of force backing the *disarmament* of Iraq.
And while Bush was "debating," he and his entire administration repeated that Iraqi weapons were a direct and looming threat within the borders of America. As a bonus, they also managed to convince a majority of Americans that Iraqis were on the 9/11 planes...
When Bush finally "made up his mind" and gave his pre-game speech on March 17, he unambiguously repeated (16 times?) that the reason for war was to *disarm* a dangerous enemy.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html
Clearly there were other strategic reasons for invasion. So what? The reason which was repeated to Congress, to America, and to the world was an imminent threat of death and destruction. A threat which was -- and I quote --bullshit.
Mmmm, yes, because of course a huge and terrible decision like war isn't something a President would agonize over, nor would it be something he might continue investigating alternatives to even if he realized it was pretty likely what was going to happen.
After all, his name is Bush. So that means he lies.
By the way, who are you quoting?
Dean, don't waste time on him. I checked out his blog, and the goober has a full-blown commentary based on the claim that Wolfowitz "confessed that the war really was about oil."
Yep, you can make up anything you want, with selective quoting. Maybe you should add another award, like the "Maureen Dowd Award for Best Distorted Quote?" Heh.
You know, I haven't seen one, single, intelligent, credible argument to support the "Bush lied" yet. Pathetic...
I would have to agree that we've seen no credible arguments at all for this. The best they have is that, after the Bushies got permission to go to war, they pressured our intelligence services to come up with something definitive we could use in our case before the UN.
This, they spin into "lies" and want "investigations." Ah, and if we find that fatuous, it is because we are "afraid."
I believe we give these people more credibility than they deserve by even engaging them any further in debate.