DescentBB

he may have announced other reasons *in general* but if you remember why we had to go so URGENTLY and without the UN, it was because of WMD. No denying that.

But at the time nearly everybody thought there was probably a stock of chemical and biological weapons there and it was vulnerable to falling into the wrong hands, either by design or by corruption within Saddamâ??s regime. And essentially the French and the Germans said we still donâ??t care. . .

http://www0.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/repo ... 0714.shtml

Birds, it gets tedius reading your *everybody knows* and *no denying that* insistances to try to disguise your opinion's lack of substantiation. Firstly, the claim to WMD started on the Clinton watch and secondly it took ten years to *urgently* go to war and finally, the UN members that tried to renege on following through on their own resolutions are mostly now being found to have been protecting their own business dealings with Saddam. They weren't going to help then just as they're not going to help now or in the future until assured it's in their financial interests to do so.

There were many justifications stated for liberating Iraq and the principal one was regime change to attempt Middle Eastern reform. But it's been the myopic mantra of the left to harp about WMD because so far that is the only one of the justifications where Bush is semi-vulnerable, although he becomes less vulnerable to the *BUSH LIED!!1* charge everyday if you've been paying attention to the two intelligence reports issued this last week (the Brit's Butler report and the US Senate Intelligence Committee report that reveals Joe Wilson to be a liar).

But let's be honest, all the left's smoke and mirrors and disingenuous retrofitting on what would be acceptable conditions to have gone to war have been carefully tailored to put Bush--but not Clinton--in the hotseat. What everyone of us on the right really knows is that we wouldn't be having these repeated discussions on the same damn thing had it been a liberal in office when America chose liberation over endless ineffectual handwringing.

The liberation was the right thing to do and it was the right time to do it. Another recent informal poll (can't find the link at the moment) showed that only three members of Congress that voted for the war would change their vote if they'd known then what they know now. Let's not overlook that it was Congress that authorized the war.

Here's a good column from today about America's foreign policy obligations to itself and the intellectual QUAGMIRE!!1 the left seems to be stuck in by remaining stubbornly fixated on WMD and UN *permission*. There's a huge difference between justification and purpose, between reality and perception. The reality is it has been a very successful operation that fulfills the purpose of the liberation as part of America's longterm goals but the left is trying it's hardest to distort the perception into one of failure and dishonesty about the justifications, solely in a effort to regain the Whitehouse. America be damned, they just want control again.

http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/ ... MayI.shtml

Did you read my post at all bash?

Nope, I read your first one to Tyr and that was enough to know you're pretty clueless about the entire situation and have paid very little attention to either the news or the many prior debates we've had about this very issue. Frankly, going over all that old ground for the umpteenth time isn't worth the effort. You have your gris gris and no amount of evidence or reasonable discourse is going to change your innaccurate, self-serving viewpoint. So why bother trying to convince the unconvincible?

Zuruck wrote:BD, you represent why civilization is crumbling. I'm assuming a middle aged successful lawyer(?) who is a complete idiot

I'm overwhelmed.

BD

Haha bash. Well, I hope this doesn't mean we still can't be friends

Just like how I'm anti-american huh bash...

"Birds, it gets tedius reading your *everybody knows* and *no denying that* insistances to try to disguise your opinion's lack of substantiation"

You sidestepped my point, maybe that's why you have such a lack of grasping my point.

You know the WMD issue was why we were convinced to so urgently go to war. Yes, I know all the facts we've all discussed a million times on the DBB about saddam having weapons in the past. If you look up old posts by me pre-war, I even mentioned that he probably did have WMDs to some capacity still.

However, the bush adminstration launced the war as being urgent because iraq was an urgent national security threat. Having weapons inherently does not make a country and urgent national security threat. Saddam had the entire world breathing down his neck when we attacked him. There was nothing to be afraid of at the time, and we wasted our own money and lives because Iraq was such a national security threat it had to happen NOW. You didn't want to wait for a mushroom cloud, right?

My disagreement is not weapons or no weapons, it is national security threat or not. Not. Not urgent. Sorry, you have nothing to prove that Iraq was an urgent national security threat, no more so than many many other nations with weapons that terrorists could have access to.

But hey, keep believing it was urgent if it makes you feel better about yourself and your place in the world.

Which is essentially what I posted about Saddam not being a threat and the war being unnecessary...but I'm not badass like Birds so I go ignored

"urgent"?

President Bush, in the [url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html]state of the Union address[/url], wrote:The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies.

The only "urgency" I got there was that it was important to act quickly in order to prevent there from being an "urgent" threat -- act now while the threat is still a ways out, because once it becomes urgent, you don't really have time to act.

"imminent"?

President Bush wrote:Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

Clearly, the strategy was to deal with it before it became "urgent" or "imminent". It was to deal with it while it was still a "gathering threat" -- while it was still being formed, rather than when it got to the point of being a real danger. I can only find record of one of the major President/VP candidates referring to Iraq as an "imminent threat", and that was John Edwards.

I never got the vibe from Bush that the war in Iraq was "urgent" -- I always got the vibe that it was simply something that had been coming for a long time, and it should happen long before it became urgent.

Some might argue, then: if it wasn't urgent, why didn't we wait for France and Germany and Russia to come around? Why not give the UN another 2 years? Well, I think it was fairly clear that those nations did not intend to come around, and would not come around until such time as the threat was *actually* imminent (particularly to their nation) and the need was *actually* urgent. And in the mean time, Saddam would continue to oppress his people, shoot at American planes in the no-fly zones, fund Palestinian terrorists, etc. So while it wasn't urgent, there really wasn't any good reason to wait. It's kind of like filing your tax return (if you expect a refund) January 1 -- it's not *urgent* (it will become urgent April 15), but there's no good reason to wait, and it's better to do it sooner rather than later.

Heh. A search for "Imminent threat" uncovers:

" I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country.

- John Edwards on CNN Feb. 24, 2002

Link (search for "imminent" in the transcript)

Anyone care? Didn't think so. I think (D) stands for "don't go there" these days.

What Lothar said. Iraq wasn't presented as urgent at all, merely overdue. The only thing urgent about it is that it was obvious our *allies* were losing interest and appeared ready to just throw up their hands and declare Hussein the winner in the showdown. In that context, I agree, it became more pressing that something be done before doing nothing became policy.

"Some might argue, then: if it wasn't urgent, why didn't we wait for France and Germany and Russia to come around? Why not give the UN another 2 years?"Lothar

Well as the leftniks here like to say, "Its all about oil". This well worn mantra does have applicability here insofar as the "Salad Oil" for food program was liberally (get it...liberal ) splashed over the above power elite's water cress and crouton dish of artful blind's eye toward Iraq. Power lubrication by Iraq would have made the UN wait until the proverbial cows came home before any action would have been taken.

I don't think the U.N. was for inaction. I don't think anyone was. If there was proof of WMD that Iraq wouldn't relinquish, nobody would have gotten in the US's way, and a quick coalition would have been formed to invade.

From what I recall, the big ruckus at the time was whether or not we should wait for arms inspections to do their thing. The conservatives of the world wanted to see some results, US and Britain didn't want to wait. It wasn't just the "there's WMD" argument that felt unsubstantiated, it was also the "arms inspectors don't work" argument. I remember the rhetoric bouncing back and forth - Rumsfeld et al were chomping at the bit to find any excuse to start the invasion sooner than later. It was like a high school debate - some of the points you believe, some you don't, either way you try to argue your case. Hussein, the maniac, was reluctant to let anyone in (duh-uhhh!) - that didn't necessarily imply he was hiding WMD. Big questions at the time:

- did they ever convincingly establish why arms inspections weren't good enough?
- did they ever suggest improvements to arms inspection process? At the very extreme, you smear Iraq with US/UN officials who keep the country under a spyglass so that nobody with halitosis breathes without someone saying "wait, is that WMD???". Wouldn't that be cheaper than war?
- could Iraq have possibly developed and proliferated WMD in a climate like that?

Maybe they really thought there was WMD. And maybe there even was. But none have been found, and so right or wrong, the diplomatic part of the war has been lost.

I'm not saying Bush is unequivocally wrong (even though that's what I personally believe). However, he's clearly not unequivocally right.

"- did they ever convincingly establish why arms inspections weren't good enough? "

Actually yes. Seems the inspectors rooms were bugged so the Iraqi's knew beforehand where the inspectors were going to look.

woodchip, why don't you reread Meyham's second point. smear the country with inspectors from tons of countries to find it.

We've been down this road before...

Nuclear Arms Reportedly Found In Iraq

Al-Reuters is already reporting it's a hoax (which it likely is but I like scaring the bejebus out of the ABB bunch anyway ).

"Well as the leftniks here like to say, "Its all about oil". " - Woodchip

Hey wood, what leftniks here like to say that? Your posts have been slipping lately and at this point sound more like anti-left generalizations pieced together from fox news than a formulated, researched opinion.

Mehyam said:
"From what I recall, the big ruckus at the time was whether or not we should wait for arms inspections to do their thing."

Yes, that is correct. And...they found nothing...and there was nothing. And yet we just had to go right then because saddam was such a threat.


A few quotes for you from Mr Bush:
"Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant, who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility towards the United States."


In this quote, he is developing the connection between saddam's WMD and his hate for the USA--and how it may translate into an attack on us. You have weapons, then invaded other people and struck other nations, then "unrelenting hostility towards the US"

Yes, that's not completely clear, but anyone being intellectually honest can see the point there.


"First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place."

*snicker* I think this one speaks for itself.

"Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?"


Sounds like developing the case for urgency. Hell, he even used the word.


"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 and biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using UAVs for missions targeting the United States. "


It's clear from these quotes that Bush wanted to instill a fear of Iraq attacking or aiding an attack of the us homeland, and that is the need for an urgent war.


"We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. "


Here Bush goes hyping the feeble at best Iraq/AlQ ties.


"Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. "


Sounds pretty urgent to me.


"Some citizens wonder: After 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now?

There is a reason. We have experienced the horror of September 11. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing -- in fact they would be eager -- to use a biological, or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. "

What is not more urgent than preventing a mushroom cloud?

What's the easiest way to get someone to buy into something? Make them feel scared. If it's raining and you're selling umbrellas on the streetcorner: "what if your stuff gets wet?" If you're selling fire extinguishers: "what if your kitchen catches fire? You need a BC fire extinguisher for that, in addition to the A you're already buying!" If you're selling study aides: "what if you score low on your SATs and don't get into any good colleges?"

If you're selling a war: "what if the enemy blows us up first?"

And if you're selling news, "President Bush wonders what will happen if the enemy blows us up first. More at eleven."

My point is that promoting fear was the path of least resistance for the Bush administration. You can't expect people to understand "installing a pro-Western leadership in Iraq could give us a great base of operations to hunt down terrorists/stabilize the middle east". All the masses understand are violence and bloodshed.

Birdseye wrote:"Well as the leftniks here like to say, "Its all about oil". " - Woodchip

Hey wood, what leftniks here like to say that? Your posts have been slipping lately and at this point sound more like anti-left generalizations pieced together from fox news than a formulated, researched opinion.

Ummm, Birdy...that was only a lead in sentance to tie the rest of my reply to Lothars statement. Don't parse out one line as a stand alone item. You not eating any of your cookies lately?

Birdseye wrote:

Bush wrote:Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant, who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility towards the United States.

In this quote, he is developing the connection between saddam's WMD and his hate for the USA--and how it may translate into an attack on us.

Yes, agreed. Where's the sense of urgent and immediate need for action, though? It seems to me it matches up pretty well with my statement:

"It was important to act quickly in order to prevent there from being an "urgent" threat -- act now while the threat is still a ways out."

There isn't an urgent, immediate threat -- but there's a mounting threat, and there's no reason to waste our time waiting for it to become urgent. Saddam was aggressive; Saddam hates us; Saddam doesn't hesitate to use chemical and biological weapons. Therefore, we shouldn't just sit and wait for him to gain the ability to strike us.

Birdseye wrote:

Bush wrote:"Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?"

Sounds like developing the case for urgency. Hell, he even used the word.

It's true that he uses the word -- but it's part of a question, not of an answer.

The case he's developing isn't "OMG WE NEED TO ACT NOW OR WE'LL DIE" -- it's "why wait? We know this guy is trouble, and we know eventually he's going to be even bigger trouble, so why wait?" That's not a case for urgency, just a case for swift action. There is a difference.

The quotes you give establish MY CASE exactly -- there isn't a great deal of urgency (you're pushing that onto his quotes), but there's also no good reason to wait. So, get him now before he gets to the point of being a huge threat.

Lothar wrote:There isn't an urgent, immediate threat -- but there's a mounting threat, and there's no reason to waste our time waiting for it to become urgent. Saddam was aggressive; Saddam hates us; Saddam doesn't hesitate to use chemical and biological weapons. Therefore, we shouldn't just sit and wait for him to gain the ability to strike us.

I don't know if you're speaking that as your own opinion, or if you're rephrasing what Bush said, or both, but it's not hard to see how a discerning bystander remains unconvinced. You're saying invasion is justified by a mounting threat. What does that even mean? How can a threat like that be reasonably defined? And, how less defensible and unclear is that compared to invasion due to an urgent threat!

Let's suppose that there are a dozen other "mounting" threats to U.S. security in other parts of the world right now - which wouldn't surprise me. How difficult will it be for the U.S. military to bond a coalition the next time one of those threats become urgent? Credibility does matter... being the unilateral police of the world is a huge cost, with unforeseeable side-effects.

I don't see how any reasonable person couldn't be doubting, at least a little, due to the uncertainty of the argument upon which the invasion decision was justified. It also sniffs of untruth in the "no alternative but invasion" arguments we were provided, in the face of any number of creative alternatives that my gut tells me were never sought out.

It comes down to this: either the Bush people (bush people, heh) really felt justified in invading, or they had hidden motives and tried to sell a real justification to cover them. Political figures have never lied and stretch truths to get what they want, no, that never happens.

And woody, if you sniff anything 'lefty' in this post, let me know. I've never felt more unbiased in my life.

Lothar wrote:The quotes you give establish MY CASE exactly -- there isn't a great deal of urgency (you're pushing that onto his quotes), but there's also no good reason to wait.

Oh but there was one helluva good reason to wait - how about time to craft an alternative to an expensive and bloody war? How about some time to plan the war aftermath? How about some time to sketch out the 5, 10, 15 year outcomes? That seems so utterly logical to me. It's what I think any thinking, competent person would do.

So fine, it wasn't urgent. In that case, it was rash.

Amazing, You guys will argue over the direction a fart drifted.....

Before you Blowhards utter another word, think of it this way. What if you were one of the Iraqi citizens who lived in fear day in day out (not the rightwing paki's masquerading as Iraqi's). you would be a little pissed the US waited 12 LONG years!

Rash is right.

If the administration had not treated the 'we want to knock out Hussein' like a typical American TV commercial (ie: lies and small print), I'm sure many people would have agreed and supported the decision at the start. I don't trust a thing Bush says, and why should I? Especially after that laughable $300 rebate 'incentive' that started his campaign (That idiot America fell for, hook, line and sinker).

"My point is that promoting fear was the path of least resistance for the Bush administration" - DCrazy

Finally, a bush supporter who admits it. The Bush administration intentionally propogated fear in hopes to gain support for the war in iraq. I feel that is wrong, you feel it is right. That's where we can disagree, but finally a bush supporter admits it. That's exactly how it felt to me.


"Ummm, Birdy...that was only a lead in sentance to tie the rest of my reply to Lothars statement" - WOODCHIP

Ahh woody you know you make enough generalized anti left comments to belong in limbaugh's program. I can cut and paste from some of your posts if you like

"There isn't an urgent, immediate threat -- but there's a mounting threat, and there's no reason to waste our time waiting for it to become urgent. Saddam was aggressive; Saddam hates us; Saddam doesn't hesitate to use chemical and biological weapons. Therefore, we shouldn't just sit and wait for him to gain the ability to strike us." - LOTHAR

Doublespeak for the word "urgent". There are thousands of "mounting threats" on the planet. Don't tell me you actually think we went to war not because of an urgent threat but because of a "mounting" threat? heh. If you feel threatened enough to launch a pre-emptive strike, I'd call that an urgent national security matter.

"but there's also no good reason to wait" - LOTHAR

Wow, I can think of a LOT. But hey, we already know you prefer the course of spending billions of american dollars and hundreds of american lives rather than to wait a little longer on someone who posed no clear threat to the US.

Mehyam, great post. Oh the reconstruction you speak of? Naw, we didn't plan that. You know, just like war torn Afghanistan.

Thx Birds.

BUBBALOU wrote:Amazing, You guys will argue over the direction a fart drifted.....

Some here would say from the right, others from the left.

Birdseye wrote:The Bush administration intentionally propogated fear in hopes to gain support for the war in iraq.

I'll join DCrazy in admitting there is truth to that but I truly believe Bush and Co. jumped on the 'fear' bandwagon after the fact when they saw it building momentum that would help sell a policy they believed was just and warranted. They didn't fabricate the post 9/11 sentiment or make a scapegoat of a harmless Hussain. They knew Hussain was a bad guy and in the post 9/11 atmosphere the posse was already mounted and in the field...why not keep rounding up bad guys while you have the manpower?

Maybe if you also disagree with the policy then you'd think I'm splitting hairs but if you believe, as I do, that there were many good reasons for the invasion/occupation then you would see that Bush is guilty of poor public relations in his sales campain but not guilty of creating the need for the war as some suggest.

Will Robinson wrote:I'll join DCrazy in admitting there is truth to that but I truly believe Bush and Co. jumped on the 'fear' bandwagon after the fact when they saw it building momentum that would help sell a policy they believed was just and warranted.

Which turns this into a "does the end justify the means" debate, which there's no point in rehashing.

However, some of us are still seeking justification for the 'ends'. And don't get me started on the means.