Bush to Blair: We Fixed Intelligence

[bunglehead]

The Bushies are really consolidating the power of the executive branch. They're trying to hamstring the courts. They're trying to take away power from the Senate. They're viciously going after the fourth estate. Getting closer to autocracy every day!

 

I'm just glad we don't live in a country that encourages political dynasties!

[chucK]

Yep. People would much rather hear about Jacko or some dumbass who almost got his ass shot down by an F-16 than "I told you so".

[Dustin_B]

Why are our normal right-wing contributors so absent in this thread? I'd at least like to hear the excuses and explanations, as lame as they may be...

 

All the reps are out working and making money while all the libs are unemployeed and spraying on the net.

[j_b]

meanwhile at PBS: http://www.freepress.net/press/release.php?id=70

[Jim]

The more compelling our journalism, the angrier the radical right of the Republican Party gets," Moyers said. "That's because the one thing they loathe more than liberals is the truth. And the quickest way to be damned by them as liberal is to tell the truth."

[JayB]

I think that Chuck is largely correct concerning why this story hasn't generated much of a response from anyone. I have already stated my case here ad infinitum - which essentially boiled down to the removal of Hussein and his regime by force as the least of many evils, the remainder of which were a variation on either mantaining the embargo/inspections indefinitely or dropping the matter and leaving the regime to go about its business without serious interference. Most serious people seemed to agree that all of the options had serious potential downsides, and made their choices in light of the potential consequences that would flow from them. I would have likely disagreed with someone who was arguing for something else as the least of many evils, but the very fact that they were willing to undertake a sober analysis of the situation and make their judgement in light of the fact that there was no cost-free solution to the problems posed by the regime - but if their argument was solid and sincere I would respect their opinion quite a bit more than that of someone who hadn't bothered to do so. Ditto for those who are campaigning for an immediate removal of American troops from Iraq without acknowledging the likely consequences of such a move.

 

What I have never seen on this board, as far as I can recall, is much in the way of serious considerations of the implications of maintaining the inspections/embargo or, essentially abandoning both and seeing what happens by the people opposing the invasion, who were thereby endorsing one of the other two options by default. The same goes for a hasty removal of the American troops.

 

In this particular case - the implicit argument is that since the regime did not have a stockpile of WMD's in 2001, then simply maintaining the embargo/inspections and the oil for food program or essentially abandoning both would have obviated any threat from the regime in the future. Given what is now known about the oil for food progam and what has long been known about the regime, that might not be a terribly easy position to defend, but if that's your take on things, why not say so outright?

 

That kind of a discussion would be interesting and worth participating in. Being subjected to the usual rehash of tired one-liners and articles of faith along the lines of "No blood for oil!" etc isn't.

[foraker]

I guess it just depends on what your definition of 'lie to the American people' is......

[ChrisT]

good one liner

[chucK]

I don't have a lot of time to write a big long post here, but I think, given hindsight, it is rather easy to defend the position of not invading Iraq.

 

Starting with the obvious hindsight of not spending hundreds of billions in the lethal money pit of the current Iraq, not having to worry about non-existent Iraqi nuclear weapons, not getting 1600 US soldiers and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis (the ones we are there to save from Saddam) killed. Then moving on with rosy projections that we would have found out about the oil for food scam anyway, I think it's pretty easy to say that we (the US) would have been better off just sticking with the old embargo.

 

Now, if you're thinking from the point of view of a defense contractor, a republican riding the wings of the Saddam-Al Qaeda connection to office, one of the many Iraqis who were being persecuted by Saddam but are not yet killed or imprisoned, an Iranian, North Korean, or Saudi Arabain leader/monarch/politician, or a recruiter for Al Qaeda, then I'd have to agree with you. In hindsight, sanctions would not have been better than the current situation.

[j_b]

Hey Jay_B, surely to be consistent you'll now argue to invade Uzbekistan: What drives support for this torturer

 

"tired one-liners and articles of faith along the lines of "No blood for oil!"

[Jim]

Ya just gotta love the analyis that essentially says "Saddam was a bad guy, we took a sober analysis of the situation, and then methodically concluded it was the right thing to do"

 

What a crock. Any objective analysis of facts rather than conjecture, would look at the first administration rehashes in the GW's, the plans to boot Saddam that were resurrected, and the fishing for paper thin reasons for going to war. Then following an exposition of the lies, the hop-scotch for other reasons.

 

If it was such a good idea then why not just lay out the truth for your reasons, not lying and trying (and succeeding) in scaring the public.

 

Then comes the "water-under-the-bridge" logic. No need to rehash past events, we're fighting for freedom, etc. etc. I agree with one thing, that we can't just cut our losses now. We're screwed, as are the people of Iraq. Not only did we blunder our way in there, we did it without sufficient troops and any reasonable post-war planning.

 

Remember how the Iraqi oil revenues would pay for all this? That went by the wayside quickly enough.

 

To date: approximately 100,000 civilians killed

In the 2 wks since a parliment was formed: 400 dead

Latest appropriations request for Iraq and Afganistan: $81.9 Billion

[JayB]

Well - that's better. I seem to recall the effects that the sanctions were having on the Iraqi population having similar effects to those attributed to the invasion. The suffering induced seemed to play a significant role in making the US less popular in the Arab world, was oft menitioned as a potent recruting tool for Al-Queda - as was the presence of significant numbers of American troops in Saudi Arabia - and - seemed to be enabling Hussein to further consolidate his control over the state, to the further detriment of the Iraqi people, and of course there's the fact that he would still be in power. If you think that's better - that's a defensible position, but its not without its downsides and complications - some of which you've acknowledged.

 

I'm also not sure how this has benefitted the Iranians or the North Koreans, unless one accepts that we would seriously contemplate a land-invasion of either country rather than selective bombing of nuclear weapons sites - which are still well within our capabilities - seeing as the Air Force and Navy are not unduly engaged in Iraq.

 

Also not sure how the situation benefits the Saudis, but I'd be interested in hearing that argument.

[Dru]

$50 a barrel oil benefits the Saudis in the short term anyways. In the long term, if it promotes oil conservation or oil alternatives, it might not benefit them.

[cj001f]

I'm also not sure how this has benefitted the Iranians or the North Koreans, unless one accepts that we would seriously contemplate a land-invasion of either country rather than selective bombing of nuclear weapons sites - which are still well within our capabilities - seeing as the Air Force and Navy are not unduly engaged in Iraq.

Invading N. Korea and Iran are still within the capabilities of our military. The bigger question is whether we'd still be able to fulfill the other duties of the military - would a further extended military still be able to protect Taiwan from China? Aid Israel? Or the bigger question of "can the US afford this large a military?" I've yet to hear a good answer from the right on those questions.

 

As for Saddam and WMD's - the assertion that he'd be able to obtain useful WMD's in a reasonable time frame, say 5 years, is laughable at best, given our knowledge know. Hell, given the raw, unspun by the Bush administration intelligance then it's laughable. Especially if we'd concentrated our non-proliferation efforts on Pakistan, who've been selling stuff to half the world it seems.

[mattp]

Lets not forget, too, that the U.S. has violated the spirit of the treaty in how we have manipulated where and when we seek to prevent lawful nuclear development, and we've violated the actual text of the treaty where we have failed to pursue disarmament.

 

"Article VI. Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

 

We've also resumed testing and development, and we're talking about militarizing space in violation of other treaties.

 

I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if we've set somebody up with a couple of nukes in violation of the treaty too! Are there any arms control experts in our audience?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I don't have a lot of time to write a big long post here, but I think, given hindsight, it is rather easy to defend the position of not invading Iraq.

 

Nobody was arguing whether Hussein had WMD prior to the war (at least of the chemical and biological sort) - the argument was merely whether said weapons constituted an *imminent threat*. How convenient it is to brush that under the rug now...

 

[mattp]

KK,

It seems to me that Hans Blix prety much said he didn't think Saddam had them, and Bush and Co. trashed him for it. How convenient it is to brush that under the rug now...

[chucK]

I agree that my WMD's case is greatly bolstered by perfect hindsight, as is the view of the quagmire that has become Iraq. Normally I wouldn't make such an argument but JayB put up the challenge with "Given what is now known about..."

[KaskadskyjKozak]

KK,

It seems to me that Hans Blix prety much said he didn't think Saddam had them, and Bush and Co. trashed him for it. How convenient it is to brush that under the rug now...

 

that's not the way I remembered it...

 

France, Germany, Russia all opposed the war ostensibly because the WMDs could be "contained" through continued sanctions, and the weapons inspectors just "needed more time" to find them.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I agree that my WMD's case is greatly bolstered by perfect hindsight, as is the view of the quagmire that has become Iraq. Normally I wouldn't make such an argument but JayB put up the challenge with "Given what is now known about..."

 

Fair enough... I think the place we can all have common ground is that the "imminent threat" argument was never proven and that invading Iraq "just in case" was a mistake...

[mattp]

I don't think Blix ever said he KNEW that Saddam didn't have the weapons, but he certainly said that every time they went to check a site where the US reported they'd find such weapons, there were none. And, in the run-up to the war, he definitely said that the US was vastly overstating the significance of whatever weak evidence they had.

 

Do we have "common ground" on the point that the Bush administration deliberately exaggerated the threat in order to get support for the war?

 

(or can you look at all the evidence and say, with a straight face, that they did not?)

Edited May 16, 2005 by mattp

[j_b]

Nobody was arguing whether Hussein had WMD prior to the war (at least of the chemical and biological sort) - the argument was merely whether said weapons constituted an *imminent threat*.

 

that is certainly not true. the administration was arguing saddam had wmd: bio, chem, and may be nukes (they knew where they were, mobile labs, etc...) whereas many people against intervention said there was no evidence whatsoever that any of that was true.

 

Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction

 

Speaker: Bush, George - President

 

Date: 9/26/2002

 

Quote/Claim:

"The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons…And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes.” [source: White House Web site]"

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/custom/cap/findorg.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=124702

 

 

Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction

 

Speaker: Rumsfeld, Donald - Secretary of Defense

 

Date: 9/19/2002

 

Quote/Claim:

"[saddam has] amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons, including Anthrax, botulism, toxins and possibly smallpox. He's amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, Sarin and mustard gas.” [source: DOD Web site]"

 

and dozens of other quotes ...

Edited May 17, 2005 by j_b

[JayB]

 

 

 

 

 

HOME >> NEWS

 

 

What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JANUARY 30, 2004

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

 

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

 

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

 

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

 

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

 

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

 

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton.

- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

 

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

 

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

 

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."

- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

 

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

 

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

 

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

 

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

 

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

 

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

 

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

[j_b]

yeah, so what? DNC democrats are spineless? what a scoop!

 

anyhow i said "people against intervention" and as far as i know all the people quoted in your post voted for it in congress. democrats better pay attention to the antiwar agenda or they are doomed (and that includes dean)

[j_b]

Pre-1990: ‘necessary’ real politics to fight off the evil murderers in iran thus we squarely support saddam (weaponry, intelligence, etc …)

Consequences: Several millions dead in the iraq/iran wars. Arming of saddam and consolidation of his dictatorship.

 

1991-2003: ‘necessary’ real politics to fight off the evil murderers in iraq (sounds familiar? But really, we can’t trust these people, first they are ‘good’, then they are ‘bad’, sheesh, go figure …).

Consequences: at least ~500,000 dead due to the embargo. Further consolidation of saddam’s dictatorship.

 

2003-present: ‘necessary’ real politics to fight off evil murderers and to teach democracy to the good folks of iraq.

Consequences: ~100,000 dead since invasion and no end to the bloodbath in sight (no plans for leaving but there are plans for permanent bases). saddam's out. Country infrastructure totally destroyed.

 

Come on, isn’t it obviously clear from the consistency of our policies that the well being of Iraqis is what motivates us? Rest assured, we learned from our mistakes, just as in the 1990s we learned about those that were made in the 1980’s, so what are you worried about? Anyhow, just check out Uzbekistan, see how things have changed …