DescentBB

Posted: **Mon Aug 17, 2009 2:03 am**

Good reply Will. I essentially agree, though I don't think Obama's economic angling is as harsh or negative as Bush's, but he is certainly leveraging his favorite agendas well in the same way, with both leveraging the circumstances of their presidency.

Posted: **Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:09 am**

No! Nononono, you've got it all wrong, see, we're not invading the area, we're stabilizing it. There's a huge difference. We're only trying to impose our own system onto others who don't really want it.

Posted: **Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:09 pm**

Birdseye wrote:a large portion of the public believe Saddam and Iraq had ties to 9-11... Bush was somewhat promoting this idea, certainly not denying it

I recall going back and forth on this while it was originally going on.

The Bush administration, several times, made the point that Iraq wasn't responsible for 9/11, and that the connection was ideological ("supporters of terrorism in general") rather than direct. For example, Condi said on CBS news that

Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.

That somehow got shortened to "there is a tie between Iraq and 9/11" and repeated over and over again, mainly by Iraq war opponents who wanted to say "the Bush administration is lying, Iraq wasn't behind 9/11". IIRC you were one of those making that argument.

Why is it so hard for otherwise intelligent people to recognize that the Bush administration was fairly consistent in saying "9/11 was Al Qaeda and the Taliban, Saddam wasn't a part of it, but Saddam's regime supports the same dangerous ideology and needs dealt with"? I don't think it was the Bush administration that was being dishonest in this case; I think it was the pundits who wanted to discredit Bush using a "Saddam caused 9/11" straw-man.

There are and have always been plenty of good reasons to be against the Iraq war. Manufacturing this particular fiction hurts your case.

-------

9/11 was certainly a tipping point in middle east affairs, because it brought home to us the danger of allowing fanaticism to rise unchecked in the middle east. The Iraq war was partly a result of that change in attitude, and partly a result of various things the Iraqi regime had done in the dozen years prior; let's not ignore one part of that in favor of the other.

Posted: **Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:32 pm**

That somehow got shortened to \"there is a tie between Iraq and 9/11\" and repeated over and over again, mainly by Iraq war opponents who wanted to say \"the Bush administration is lying, Iraq wasn't behind 9/11\". IIRC you were one of those making that argument.

(I believe the above was not directed at me but I'm responding)

Do you really believe it was the Iraq war opponents who pushed that idea, in a conspiracy to make Bush look bad? As far as I can tell, Dick Cheney was the one pushing all the Saddam/Al Qaeda talk. Then Tenet's info about Saddam's ties turns out later to be bogus, and Tenet is gone. They hung people out to dry with lies IMO, I don't believe they really believed all of george tenet's info and the bad intelligence. Again to me they are either Liars, or Stupid. But that is a judgement call, not my real point,

Why is it so hard for otherwise intelligent people to recognize that the Bush administration was fairly consistent in saying \"9/11 was Al Qaeda and the Taliban, Saddam wasn't a part of it, but Saddam's regime supports the same dangerous ideology and needs dealt with\"? I don't think it was the Bush administration that was being dishonest in this case; I think it was the pundits who wanted to discredit Bush using a \"Saddam caused 9/11\" straw-man.

because they weren't consistent with this. And you aren't paying close enough attention to what Cheney has said.

Here's Cheney admitting he made a public connection

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/01/ ... newssearch

I do not believe and have never seen any evidence to confirm that [Hussein] was involved in 9/11. We had that reporting for a while, [but] eventually it turned out not to be true,\" Cheney conceded.

Cheney even ADMITS he was reporting Saddam was involved in 9-11!

This quote he spells out a relationship between Iraq and Mohamed Atta.

In late 2001, Cheney said it was \"pretty well confirmed\" that Sept. 11 mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official before the attacks, in April 2000 in Prague; Cheney later said the meeting could not be proved or disproved.

Bush, in his speech aboard an aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003, asserted: \"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda and cut off a source of terrorist funding.\"

Cheney again:

In September, Cheney said on NBC's \"Meet the Press\": \"If we're successful in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.\"

Speaking about Iraq's alleged links to al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 attacks, Cheney connected Iraq to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing by saying that newly found Iraqi intelligence files in Baghdad showed that a participant in the bombing returned to Iraq and \"probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.\" He added: \"The Iraqi government or the Iraqi intelligence service had a relationship with al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s.\"

Wow, he doesn't go out and say it, but is it really that hard to read between the lines here? What do you think he expects the public to believe his words mean?

So Iraq has been a major funder of Al Qaeda, who is reponsible for 9-11, but now Iraq is not involved in 9-11? Sorry it doesn't make sense. If Saddam was a huge supporter of Al Qaeda (and there is little evidence of that) then it means he at least was \"partially responsible.\" I mean basically Cheney and Bush are saying that we have to get rid of Iraq, or they are going to fund another terrorist attack like they did on 9-11.

C

Posted: **Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:58 pm**

Brian,

you're making a series of jumps in what you're reading from Cheney and then assuming anyone who doesn't make those same jumps is either lying or stupid.

Your quote of Cheney doesn't say he was reporting, it says We had that reporting -- in other words, someone had given him such a report. You're making a leap to say that he had made such a report, or to say that that was a public position taken by the Bush administration.

You jump from \"Saddam and Al Qaeda were linked\" to \"Saddam and 9/11 were linked\" as well. One can be linked to or even support a particular organization without being responsible for every particular activity of that organization. Saddam's regime had links to some parts of Al Qaeda, but that in no way makes them responsible for 9/11, and I don't think you, me, Dick Cheney, or the American public in general are stupid enough to think it does.

I think the administration CONSISTENTLY put forward the argument that Saddam was linked directly or indirectly to various terror groups, gave safe haven to some of them, hadn't been involved in 9/11 itself, but was dangerous because he was willing to work with the sort of people who would do such things. This is not a complicated argument; it's not beyond the intelligence of average people.

I do believe it was Iraq war opponents who pushed the idea that Bush was saying Saddam caused 9/11. It was they opponents who kept truncating the quotes; it happened on this board several times! It wasn't a \"conspiracy\", it was merely a straw man -- it was the a convenient way to argue against the Iraq war (since arguing \"Saddam isn't dangerous\" wouldn't have worked.) And, like I said in my last post, I think it hurt their case; there are and always were good reasons to oppose the Iraq war, and getting stuck on the FICTION that Bush & Friends said Saddam caused 9/11 was simply a foolish direction to go.

Posted: **Thu Aug 20, 2009 1:13 pm**

you're making a series of jumps in what you're reading from Cheney and then assuming anyone who doesn't make those same jumps is either lying or stupid.

No, no. What I meant is that Bush et al have to be either lying or stupid. (believed bad information that at the time I thought was bad)

I can understand why the american public believed the pile of horse crap they continually spewed! They were cornered out of a rhetoric of fear. I have compassion for that, not contempt.

I do believe it was Iraq war opponents who pushed the idea that Bush was saying Saddam caused 9/11

this is just an unbelievable joke, most of the anti war people wouldn't have complained if he didn't push a connection (note: that is not an argument from me).

The Bush administration did everything it could to link the two together by association CONSTANTLY. It was a brilliant polical tactic. It clearly worked out and was an INTENTIONAL political tactic. You have to at least agree at MINIMUM Cheney/Bush's message was confusing, because most of the american people were confused in polls! They believed Saddam and 9-11 were linked.

I have a question for you: do you think that the Bush/Cheney administration DID NOT EXPECT AND/OR DID NOT WANT the following to happen:

1)the public hears a BRAND NEW (to them) term, Al Qaeda, and knows that \"they did this\" to the WTC
2) Cheney publically claims connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda, including an in person meeting with Mohammed Atta that never happened, funding that did not exist
3) Public connects Saddam as a contributor to 9-11

In in arguing that Saddam funded Al Qaeda, you're saying explicitly that Iraq at minimum helped fund the 9-11 operation, since they financially supported that group, whether it was intended for 9-11 or not.

It wasn't a \"conspiracy\", it was merely a straw man

Nah, I wouldn't really even call it a conspiracy. It's just good political posturing, and Bush et all were The Masters. They were the best spinsters! See I am impressed by them too much to think they are stupid, and since I already believe most politicians lie regularly, Cheney/Bush insinuating and stating Al Qaeda ties to make the public think Iraq was involved with 9-11 was a brilliant move to gain political support from a randomly timed war.

getting stuck on the FICTION that Bush & Friends said Saddam caused 9/11 was simply a foolish direction to go.

Nah, I'm not saying Cheney ever said Saddam caused 9-11, but rather involved. Kinda of a straw man by you there

But I'll try not to be semantically motivated, perhaps you meant involved, not caused.

Can you at least admit they intentionally fluffed any supposed Al Qaeda ties in order for the public to believe such a connection existed? That is all I really care about.

Posted: **Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:28 am**

Birdseye wrote:
I do believe it was Iraq war opponents who pushed the idea that Bush was saying Saddam caused 9/11
this is just an unbelievable joke, most of the anti war people wouldn't have complained if he didn't push a connection...

The Bush administration did everything it could to link the two together by association CONSTANTLY.

The Bush administration did try to link Saddam to Al Qaeda, but not "CONSTANTLY", and certainly not doing "everything it could". The links they gave were not particularly strong in connecting Saddam to 9/11; they merely demonstrated a willingness to work with the sort of people who would perpetrate such an act. They relied on perhaps weak intelligence, but I see no indication that they went out of their way to try to create or insinuate links they themselves didn't believe existed. It's possible that they "fluffed" such ties, but it's also possible they simply took the ties their intel people gave them and reported them fairly; as I'm not a telepath, I cannot speak to their intent.

Most of the anti-war people would've complained no matter what. Those who were in the media took it a step farther and mis-quoted or inappropriately summarized Bush administration comments in order to create a straw man (an exaggerated Saddam-9/11 link) they could then knock down.

"It was a brilliant polical tactic" -- by the anti-war types. While the Bush administration was fairly measured in connecting Saddam to AQ, people misquoting the Bush administration created the FICTION that Bush had unfairly connected Saddam to 9/11 in a very direct way. Then they complained about their own fiction. (This doesn't mean that Bush/Cheney's message was confusing, only that the reporting or misreporting of it was confusing!) Similarly, while the Bush administration was pushing six or seven major reasons to go into Iraq, the anti-war types created the FICTION that WMD was the one and only reason. Both of those fictions are still believed by fairly intelligent people today.

Can you at least admit the anti-war types consistently misquoted or misstated the Bush administration's position, both on the Saddam/AQ link and the overall case for war?

Posted: **Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:35 am**

I thought it was a good idea. I still do.

I can remember several reasons given at the time for going to war.

The one everyone talked about was that in a climate of global terrorism, we had to take threats more seriously, especially from folks with WMDs who might work with terrorists, and that Saddam was one of those folks. I think that's held up kind of so-so. Strategically I think it's true, and given what we knew at the time, the case was good. Can't know what bad things would have happened if we'd left Saddam in peace this last decade, cuz it didn't happen. But he wasn't as big of a threat on that front as we thought he was, at least not immediately. But he still was one, and was worth dealing with.

One of the other ones was that his regime supported terrorism financially and by providing a harbor, and that was something we took more seriously. I think that's held up so-so, too. Seems to have been true enough, I don't know if he was the most sensible target.

One of the better reasons I recall was that 9-11 as an attack on us wasn't from a state, or even from a non-state actor, but from an ideology -- and that the response to that ideology was another ideology. That is, terrorism cannot flourish under liberty, and knocking over tyrants--especially in the middle east--has the side effect of making the world safer. At the time, I thought this was a brilliant and cogent characterization of the threat, and a response that might actually work. I still think that. How well it's worked speaks to the risk involved in any endeavor on that scale, but I definitely give points for attempting something that was worth attempting.

A similar argument, though I think this was given a little later, was the flypaper strategy: the idea that terrorists too busy attacking us in the middle east wouldn't have time to attack anyone else. That's worked out really well, I'd say. I'd almost do it again just for that.

Kind of a bonus was that Saddam was an evil bad guy, and we did support the destruction of his regime, and the people would appreciate it -- well, that was a feel-good addon, I suppose. There's no shortage of tyrants in the world to attack, and you shouldn't do so indescriminately -- national soverignty and all that. But I'll never say no if you've got a legal and strategic excuse to do a good deed. And we did. And I'd say that's held up really, really well.

It turned out to be expensive? Meh. Yeah, I guess. Not the most expensive thing government's ever done, though, and on the whole rather cheap as wars go. Letting the problem get worse would have made it more expensive to clean up; I think this still has the possiblity to be extremely historically worthwhile. So it was worth trying.

Posted: **Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:22 am**

Drakona wrote:One of the better reasons I recall was that 9-11 as an attack on us wasn't from a state, or even from a non-state actor, but from an ideology -- and that the response to that ideology was another ideology.

The problem I see with this is that it attacked the wrong ideology.

The ideology that was behind 911 was Radical Fundamentalist Islam. A movement that believes separation between church and state is evil. A movement that wants all governments to be run by Sharia law and subjugated to the whims of the Imams.

In contrast to that, Saddam's Iraq, evil as it was, was one of the most secular of the Islamic states. Most notably, Iraq did not live under Sharia Law BEFORE the war. Now they do. Iraq provided a degree of religious freedom, and allowed women to own property. It was not a NICE place, by any means. Saddam WAS a tyrant, but he was a completely different KIND of tyrant from the religious rulers behind Sharia states such as Iran.

Attacking Iraq because he had the same ideology as the terrorists is like attacking Episcopalians because you were angry with Jehovah's Witnesses. It sent entirely the wrong message, and has actually resulted in Iran having MORE influence on Iraq, and Iraq instituting Sharia law. This doesn't seem the direction we wanted to go in order to reduce the influence of Radical Fundamentalist Islam.

Posted: **Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:48 pm**

...Been lurking for a while on this one.

I don't agree with Birdseye's view that tying 9/11 to Saddam was some kind of 'constant, intentional' tactic for gathering support for the war.

However, I don't agree with Lothar that this was a fictionalized idea originating from anti-war groups.

On one hand, I certainly remember the Bush administration being careful to outline the various reasons for military action. On the other hand, I also recall a consistently broad message about combating terrorism, often with references to the 9/11 attack. From my perspective, it was two distinct messages: One, a rational argument, addressing specific issues with Iraq; and the other, an emotional appeal to common grief and fear.

Yes, there were some \"t\"s crossed and some \"i\"s dotted. However, much of what bothered my wife and I was seeing the Bush administration (who we had just voted for) content to ride a level of public support largely motivated by hurt and vengeance rather than the rationale Drakona referenced.

Posted: **Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:25 pm**

Kilarin wrote:
Drakona wrote:One of the better reasons I recall was that 9-11 as an attack on us wasn't from a state, or even from a non-state actor, but from an ideology -- and that the response to that ideology was another ideology. That is, terrorism cannot flourish under liberty, and knocking over tyrants--especially in the middle east--has the side effect of making the world safer.
The problem I see with this is that it attacked the wrong ideology.

The ideology that was behind 911 was Radical Fundamentalist Islam.

I have extended the original quote to its appropriate length.

The ideology behind 911 was not merely Radical Fundamentalist Islam... it was a combination of radical fundamentalist islam with tyranny, oppression, a willingness to perpetrate violence on innocents, etc. Saddam was a tyrant, tyranny creates a breeding ground for terror, and that's the connection Drakona made that you cut out of your quote.

Some types of Sharia are gaining ground in Iraq, but at the same time, tyranny has lessened. It's not as though we replaced Saddam with the Taliban; we replaced Saddam with a representative government that has some parts that lean towards Sharia and others that do not. A slight hint of radical fundamentalist islam is still less of a problem than a whole country under tyranny.

Foil wrote:I don't agree with Lothar that this was a fictionalized idea originating from anti-war groups.... I also recall a consistently broad message about combating terrorism, often with references to the 9/11 attack.... an emotional appeal to common grief and fear.

Of course. In a post-9/11 world, we no longer had the luxury to treat threats as "far far away" and irrelevant. That was a clear connection made by the Bush administration -- the world is small enough that a group of nutjobs in power halfway across the world are still a threat that we have to take seriously.

Far from trying to claim Saddam caused or was responsible for 9/11, the claim was that 9/11 gave us reason to take threats from Saddam and other nutjob dictators more seriously. The former is the fiction from the anti-war types; the latter is the actual position from the Bush administration.

Posted: **Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:16 pm**

Birdseye wrote:Would you go again considering where we are now, broke in the bad economy blowing cash on an unnecessary war?

Looking at the vet's I know -- no. Not worth the sacrifice.

Posted: **Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:53 pm**

Lothar wrote:The ideology behind 911 was not merely Radical Fundamentalist Islam... it was a combination of radical fundamentalist islam with tyranny, oppression, a willingness to perpetrate violence on innocents, etc.

911 was not perpetrated by a state. It was not masterminded by a government. It was not carried out by soldiers. Describing the attack on Saddam as an attack on the ideology behind 911 just doesn't make any sense to me.

The Ideology of Osama Ben Laden is very, VERY different from the Ideology of Saddam. Bad Apples and Bad Oranges.

If we were going to defeat terrorism by shutting down states that support terrorism, why didn't we hit Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, where there is massive popular support for terrorism. Or Libia or Iran, where there is lots of Governmental support for terrorism. Any of those would have been an attack on the Ideology behind 911.

If we were going to strike at tyrants who's governments suppress freedom and encourage terrorism in others, why not hit North Korea, who's literally insane leader DID have weapons of mass destruction, and an open and well documented history of selling weapons to anyone who was willing to buy? It wouldn't have been a direct attack on the ideology behind 911, but certainly connected.

There just isn't a good connection to the 911 ideology and Saddam. Attacking Afghanistan made perfect sense, that WAS striking at the ideology that led to 911. Directly. Attacking Saddam was striking at an ideology that, while still obviously evil, had no significant connection to ideas behind 911 at all.

Posted: **Thu Sep 03, 2009 8:00 am**

Kilarin wrote:If we were going to defeat terrorism by shutting down states that support terrorism, why didn't we hit Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, where there is massive popular support for terrorism. Or Libia or Iran, where there is lots of Governmental support for terrorism. Any of those would have been an attack on the Ideology behind 911.

Wow...look at that, we agree on something.

Posted: **Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:02 am**

funny, just clicked on Burlyman's random Bushism generator from the other thread, and this is what it came up with:

''You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.''

—President George W. Bush, interview with CBS News' Katie Couric, Sept. 6, 2006

Posted: **Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:00 pm**

Spidey wrote:Wow...look at that, we agree on something

Had to happen sometime

Posted: **Thu Sep 03, 2009 2:57 pm**

Kilarin wrote:The Ideology of Osama Ben Laden is very, VERY different from the Ideology of Saddam.

Replacing tyranny with liberty, and making it clear to people under tyranny that liberty is desirable and attainable, is the #1 way to fight terrorism in the long term. The goal isn't exactly to attack those who have the "terrorism" ideology (treating the symptoms), but rather, to promote the "liberty" ideology that is the best remedy to tyranny (one of the root causes) and terrorism (a symptom).

There are plenty of other tyrannical states we could have attacked, certainly. Some had more popular support for terrorism, but then, it doesn't make sense to make war on a government because of the views of its people. Others perhaps gave more governmental support to Al Qaeda in particular, or to terrorism in general (though mostly terrorism against Israel rather than the US.) But none, aside from Afghanistan, had the particular mix of government support for terrorism AND aggression against US interests AND capability to create weapons (conventional or WMDs) AND not-being-allied-with-China-and-Russia that Iraq did.

I would love to be able to knock down the tyrants in Lybia, Iran, and North Korea, shut down the terrorists in Gaza and Lebanon, change the minds of the populations of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and so on. But that's a little out of reach, both militarily and politically. Afghanistan and Iraq were both battles the US could fight, and they were both battles worth fighting. If I could do it again, I would. If I could do everything in this paragraph, I would. If I had to trade Iraq for some of the other goals in this paragraph, that would be a tougher decision, but I don't think those goals were in reach at the time (but they might become within reach in the future if Iraq becomes the stable democracy I expect it to.)

Posted: **Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:31 pm**

Very grandiose goal, and doomed to fail. IMHO

Posted: **Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:50 pm**

Lothar wrote:Replacing tyranny with liberty, and making it clear to people under tyranny that liberty is desirable and attainable, is the #1 way to fight terrorism in the long term.

But this implies that tyranny is one of the major causes of terrorism. Or at least that liberty cures it. I'm not certain that can be supported. Osama Ben Laden's supporters don't join up because of tyrannical governments. And since we have grown our own terrorists right here in the US, the land of the free, I'm not certain that exposure to liberty is a cure.

When we invaded Afghanistan, it was clear to everyone, even to the Islamic world, that we were hitting people who supported the terrorists who hit us. When we invaded Iraq, the Muslim world knew that he was unconnected to the terrorist, and that Saddam was one of the lightest supporters of terrorism in the region. The link between the "war on terrorism" and actual terrorist was broken, and it became, in their view, the "war between the US and Islam". That was, in my opinion, a VERY bad move.

Posted: **Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:05 pm**

Kilarin wrote:this implies that tyranny is one of the major causes of terrorism. Or at least that liberty cures it.

Tyranny is one of the major causes of massive, state-sponsored terrorist organizations. Those organizations don't spring up under representative governments. The US gets Timothy McVeigh types -- acting with maybe a couple others, using crude weapons to blow stuff up. These are the sorts the FBI can generally keep tabs on -- law enforcement problems. Tyrannies get Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and similar organizations. These types are military problems, not FBI / police problems.

When we invaded Iraq, the Muslim world knew that he was unconnected to the terrorist, and that Saddam was one of the lightest supporters of terrorism in the region

Saddam was not particularly strongly connected to THOSE terrorists, but he did have strong terrorist ties. I would not call him "one of the lightest supporters of terrorism in the region".

Bush argued a much better case than he is given credit for, but his case was badly misrepresented by virtually everyone (especially anti-war types.) I think his vision was solid -- replace a tyrant with a representative government in the heart of the middle east, prove that it can be done, and watch as over the next century or so the rest of the middle east comes around. One thing I wish Bush had done was made the point more clearly that the biggest payoff of the Iraq war would be a generation out, at a minimum. I also wish he'd done a better job of clearly connecting the idea of liberty being the antidote for terrorism.

Posted: **Fri Sep 04, 2009 12:09 am**

Kilarin wrote:
Lothar wrote:Replacing tyranny with liberty, and making it clear to people under tyranny that liberty is desirable and attainable, is the #1 way to fight terrorism in the long term.
But this implies that tyranny is one of the major causes of terrorism. Or at least that liberty cures it. I'm not certain that can be supported. Osama Ben Laden's supporters don't join up because of tyrannical governments. And since we have grown our own terrorists right here in the US, the land of the free, I'm not certain that exposure to liberty is a cure.

Well, it's more subtle than that. But I'll tell you what -- rather than playing apologist, I'll give you the original source from my perspective. Back in 2004, Bush gave a speech to the United Nations on what the war on terror was about. At the time, I was still sorting myself out politically, but I remember that speech because I found it so persuasive.

The fulltext is here, but the first few paragraphs are the important bit. The ideas are still powerful ones, and I would be hard pressed to state them as eloquently as he did. I remain as convinced now as I was then that the war was a good idea for those reasons.

Bush wrote: During the past three years, I have addressed this General Assembly in a time of tragedy for my country, and in times of decision for all of us. Now we gather at a time of tremendous opportunity for the UN, and for all peaceful nations. For decades, the circle of liberty, and security, and development has been expanding in our world. This progress has brought unity to Europe, and self-government to Latin America and Asia, and new hope to Africa. Now we have the historic chance to widen the circle even further ... to fight radicalism and terror with justice and dignity ... and to achieve a true peace, founded on human freedom.

The United Nations and my country share the deepest commitments. Both the American Declaration of Independence and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaim the equal value and dignity of every human life. That dignity is honored by the rule of law ... limits on the power of the state ... respect for women ... protection of private property ... free speech ... equal justice ... and religious tolerance. That dignity is dishonored by oppression, corruption, tyranny, bigotry, terrorism, and all violence against the innocent. And both of our founding documents affirm that this bright line between justice and injustice - between right and wrong - is the same in every age, and every culture, and every nation.

Wise governments also stand for these principles for very practical and realistic reasons. We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace. We know that oppressive governments support terror, while free governments fight the terrorists in their midst. We know that free peoples embrace progress and life, instead of becoming the recruits for murderous ideologies.

Every nation that wants peace will share the benefits of a freer world. And every nation that seeks peace has an obligation to help build that world. Eventually, there is no safe isolation from terror networks, or the failed states that shelter them, or outlaw regimes, or weapons of mass destruction. Eventually, there is no safety in looking away, seeking the quiet life by ignoring the struggles and oppression of others.

In this young century, our world needs a new definition of security. Our security is not merely found in spheres of influence, or some balance of power. The security of our world is found in the advancing rights of mankind.

These rights are advancing across the world - and across the world, the enemies of human rights are responding with violence. Terrorists and their allies believe that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the American Bill of Rights, and every charter of liberty ever written, are lies - to be burned and destroyed and forgotten. They believe that dictators should control every mind and tongue in the Middle East and beyond. They believe that suicide and torture and murder are fully justified to serve any goal they declare. And they act on their beliefs.

In the last year alone, terrorists have attacked police stations, and banks, and commuter trains, and synagogues ... and a school filled with children. This month in Beslan we saw, once again, how the terrorists measure their success - in the death of the innocent, and in the pain of grieving families. Svetlana Dzebisov was held hostage along with her son and her nephew - her nephew did not survive. She recently visited the cemetery, and saw what she called the "little graves." She said, "I understand that there is evil in the world. But what have these little creatures done...?"

Members of the United Nations: The Russian children did nothing to deserve such awful suffering, and fright, and death. The people of Madrid, and Jerusalem, and Istanbul, and Baghdad have done nothing to deserve sudden and random murder. These acts violate the standards of justice in all cultures, and the principles of all religions. All civilized nations are in this struggle together. And all must fight the murderers.

We are determined to destroy terror networks wherever they operate - and the United States is grateful to every nation that is helping to seize terrorist assets, track down their operatives, and disrupt their plans. We are determined to end the state sponsorship of terror - and my nation is grateful to all that participated in the liberation of Afghanistan. We are determined to prevent proliferation, and to enforce the demands of the world - and my nation is grateful to the soldiers of many nations who have helped to deliver the Iraqi people from an outlaw dictator.

That dictator agreed in 1991, as a condition of a ceasefire, to fully comply with all Security Council resolutions - then ignored more than a decade of those resolutions. Finally, the Security Council promised serious consequences for his defiance. And the commitments we make must have meaning. When we say "serious consequences," for the sake of peace, there must be serious consequences. And so a coalition of nations enforced the just demands of the world.

Defending our ideals is vital - but it is not enough. Our broader mission as UN members is to apply these ideals to the great issues of our time. Our wider goal is to promote hope and progress as the alternatives to hatred and violence. Our great purpose is to build a better world beyond the war on terror.

Posted: **Fri Sep 04, 2009 1:10 am**

Bush argued a much better case than he is given credit for, but his case was badly misrepresented by virtually everyone (especially anti-war types.) I think his vision was solid -- replace a tyrant with a representative government in the heart of the middle east, prove that it can be done, and watch as over the next century or so the rest of the middle east comes around. One thing I wish Bush had done was made the point more clearly that the biggest payoff of the Iraq war would be a generation out, at a minimum. I also wish he'd done a better job of clearly connecting the idea of liberty being the antidote for terrorism.

Why Iraq, though?

We were already replacing the Taliban with a democratic government in Afghanistan, and if we had kept our armed forces focused there, Al Qaeda would have had a much more difficult time regrouping and recovering.

Supposing Afghanistan was an inadequate example of the advantages of overturning nondemocratic governments, would you really argue that Iraq was the best target available at the time? The Saudi Arabian monarchy had been known to be in bed with all manner of Middle Eastern terrorist. Kim Jong Il, from the moment we started rattling the sabre over Iraq, became increasingly and openly defiant of diplomatic efforts to shut down North Korea's nuclear weapons program. And the Iranian theocracy had the trifecta of oppressive rule, a none-too-well hidden nuclear program, and plain ties to terrorism.

Why Iraq? Yes, Saddam Hussein was an oppressor, and all-around bad guy, but he wasn't exactly the only one, and that brief list above were and have continued to work against the interests of the United States in a much grander fashion than Saddam Hussein was. Why was it so urgent that we deal with Iraq, before securing the future of Afghanistan's fledgling democracy? Why was Iraq even at the top of the list of targets, after Afghanistan?

It's the same question and the same points I've been raising since 2002 in political discussions, when the proposition of war with Iraq entered the public discourse. Subsequent events in Iran and North Korea have only made the question more pertinent and the rationalizations I've heard in response more flacid. Yes, we toppled a dictator, but why couldn't we have toppled a dictator who clearly posed an imminent threat, instead of one about whom some wishy-washy memos had been written?

Posted: **Fri Sep 04, 2009 1:20 pm**

BlueFlames, I addressed your point a few posts back:

Lothar wrote:There are plenty of other tyrannical states we could have attacked, certainly. Some had more popular support for terrorism, but then, it doesn't make sense to make war on a government because of the views of its people. Others perhaps gave more governmental support to Al Qaeda in particular, or to terrorism in general (though mostly terrorism against Israel rather than the US.) But none, aside from Afghanistan, had the particular mix of government support for terrorism AND aggression against US interests AND capability to create weapons (conventional or WMDs) AND not-being-allied-with-China-and-Russia that Iraq did.

I might add, none of the other countries listed were already tying up US military resources (no-fly zones, etc.)

People are quick to downplay the threat from Saddam, as if "wishy-washy memos" were the only reason to go after him.

So, why Iraq so quickly? Because if we'd waited too long, there wouldn't have been enough political will to go anywhere (Iraq or any of the other nations you listed.) I think Bush realized that we had a unique opportunity to actually do something productive in the middle east, and seized it while most others would've been pontificating about "better" options and letting the moment pass.

Posted: **Fri Sep 04, 2009 2:23 pm**

If we'd waited too long, there wouldn't have been enough political will to go anywhere. I think Bush realized that we had a unique opportunity to actually do something productive in the middle east, and seized it while most others would've been pontificating about \"better\" options and letting the moment pass.

Sorry, Lothar, but I just don't buy that argument. The moment Bush brought up the possibility of war with Iraq, he could have substituted any one of a dozen other belligerents in the region and made a better case, using much more solid intelligence, for an immediate attack. Remember that it is easier to build and maintain political support for a war against a nation that is an actual threat. It is easier to gather allies to fight against a nation that presents a common threat.

While toppling Saddam Hussein may have been \"productive,\" don't underestimate what it cost. It has greatly delayed and threatened our success in Afghanistan. We alienated many of our international allies in the build up to the war, leaving us to shoulder most of the burden alone. Because of that, we stretched our armed forces to the absolute breaking-point, leaving the homeland and our assets abroad vulnerable to attack.

If we had invaded Iraq for the purpose of eliminating a threat, I could have accepted much of that. Instead, you say this was an exploitation of political will to start another war, before the previous military conflict in the region had been resolved. Does it strike you as acceptable that we started a war, just because we could? If so, think of the precedent that sets. Following the United States' example, foreign governments don't even need to rationalize hostile action toward other states, so long as they can momentarily muster the domestic support for it.

Posted: **Fri Sep 04, 2009 2:35 pm**

BlueFlames wrote:The moment Bush brought up the possibility of war with Iraq, he could have substituted any one of a dozen other belligerents in the region and made a better case, using much more solid intelligence, for an immediate attack.

That's what I don't buy.

There were certainly other nations where a case could have been made for attack. I don't see any of them where the case would've been stronger.

If we had invaded Iraq for the purpose of eliminating a threat.... you say this was an exploitation of political will to start another war.... just because we could

You misrepresented my position.

Invading Iraq was definitely to eliminate a threat. It was the threat for which there was also sufficient political will to act.

You and others act as though Bush could've made the case to invade, say, Iran or Lybia and we'd have had a coalition of dozens of other nations ready and willing to go to remove a much greater threat than Saddam. I think you're flat-out wrong. Iraq had the right combination of threat, aggression, belligerence, terror support, lack of allies, etc. to allow for some military action. Afghanistan had an even stronger case, but I think every other country that's been brought up, the case would've been weaker and we'd have ended up doing nothing.

For some people, that would've been preferable. For me, it's not.

DescentBB

Iraq War - Go again?

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: Iraq War - Go again?

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: