Bush fights back

[Gawain of Orkeny]

From Bush's speech today

And our debate at home must also be fair-minded. One of the hallmarks of a free society and what makes our country strong is that our political leaders can discuss their differences openly, even in times of war. When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support. I also recognize that some of our fellow citizens and elected officials didn't support the liberation of Iraq. And that is their right, and I respect it. As President and Commander-in-Chief, I accept the responsibilities, and the criticisms, and the consequences that come with such a solemn decision.

While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. (Applause.) Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.

They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. (Applause.)

The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. (Applause.) These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. (Applause.) Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. (Applause.) And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory. (Applause.)

Its about time he spoke up.

LINK

[Divinus Arma]

Kind of reflects my continued support despite the lack of WMD... uhm, almost verbatim. Yep. Verbatim.

[Tribesman]

They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein.
Then they must also know , as Bush must also know , that intelligence agencies around the world did not agree with their assessment .

it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began.
What does he mean , like using disputed intelligence , fake intelligence given to them by agents of the "axis of evil" , ignoring contradictory intelligence , linking things that are not linked , rushing into an uneccesary conflict without proper planning .
Yeah its deeply irresponsible to write history without looking at facts isn't it .

And yet this fight we have joined is also the current expression of an ancient struggle -- between those who put their faith in dictators, and those who put their faith in the people.
And how many dictatorships is he currently backing ? With your tax-dollars

[Major Robert Dump]

He makes a solid point, and its very typical for politicians -- and the american public for that matter -- to "forget" about something they did and take the other side of the fence. the only people who have any ammo here are the ones who were against it all along.

It's also one of the reasons congress revels in presidents going to war without a declaration vote (even though they act like it unsurps their power)....if its not on paper in the form of a vote they can always say they didnt approve of it etc etc if it later becomes an unpopular decision (this doesn't really apply here because they did vote on the resolution, it just wasnt a tacit war declaration)

[Divinus Arma]

They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein.
Then they must also know , as Bush must also know , that intelligence agencies around the world did not agree with their assessment .

it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began.
What does he mean , like using disputed intelligence , fake intelligence given to them by agents of the "axis of evil" , ignoring contradictory intelligence , linking things that are not linked , rushing into an uneccesary conflict without proper planning .
Yeah its deeply irresponsible to write history without looking at facts isn't it .

And yet this fight we have joined is also the current expression of an ancient struggle -- between those who put their faith in dictators, and those who put their faith in the people.
And how many dictatorships is he currently backing ? With your tax-dollars

You, more than anyone else here, fudge the facts. Support your accusations with facts. I know you hate Bush. Fine. We get it. I also don't think he lied. But PROVE me wrong with facts. Not conjecture. FACTS.

BEFORE you reply, just read the rest of my post: I will agree that he lied IF and ONLY IF you can prove it with facts. Not conjecture. Facts. I will listen. So.... talk.

[Crazed Rabbit]

It was good until the last paragraph. The last Paragraph is utter rhetoric bull. Destroy our way of life? Al-Qaida couldn't even if they wanted to.

Well, to be fair I think AQ wants to destroy all of western civilization. Can they? That's a different story.

Crazed Rabbit

[ichi]

Well, one fact is that were no weapons of mass destruction found

a second fact is that almost all of the world's intelligence agencies, including our own, felt that they didn't exist, since we were inspecting the country fairly routinely.

A third fact is that there was a well-documented theory espoused by many high-ranking admin types that called for an invasion of Iraq prior to Bush's election. This invasion was an important issue for Bush's buddies the Saudis, they wanted Saddam out to strengthen their control over the world's oil production and to eliminate their one big threat.

A fourth fact is that Cheney's cronies have made a boatload of cash from no-bid fault-free contracts.

The stuation in Iraq will end badly, once we leave there is likely to be a bloddy civil war that will leave one of our real threats, Iran, much more powerful. As long as we stay we will feed the flames of radical Islam, which we don't need to do.

I for one supported the removal of a brutal dictator, but this administration has botched the job. I don't like being played for a fool, as Bush sold this war to the public on a pack of lies designed to garner support. Yes, as a country we started this war and we need to find a way to end it, successfully. That doesn't make Bush's actions acceptable.

This isn't because I hate Bush, it's reality. Drop all of the partisan XSBS and you'll see that we are in a very serious situation, with people on all sides suffering greatly.

ichi

[Divinus Arma]

Well, one fact is that were no weapons of mass destruction found

a second fact is that almost all of the world's intelligence agencies, including our own, felt that they didn't exist, since we were inspecting the country fairly routinely.

Are you on crack?

Talk about re-writing history. There you have it ladies and gentleman. IT WAS THE EXACT OPPOSITE!!!!!!!!!


Holy crup?!?! You people actually believe this junk???


After all the inspector dodging, inspector shuffling. After the MULTIPLE UN resolutions against Iraq demanding that they turn over their WMD or provide their whereabouts along with unrestricted inspector access.

What About THIS Ichi?

08/11/2002
Press Release
SC/7564


Security Council

4644th Meeting (AM)

SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS,
OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)


Instructs Weapons Inspections to Resume within 45 Days,

Recalls Repeated Warning of ‘Serious Consequences’ for Continued Violations


Holding Iraq in “material breach” of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a “final opportunity to comply” with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991).

By the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the Council instructed the resumed inspections to begin within 45 days, and also decided it would convene immediately upon the receipt of any reports from inspection authorities that Iraq was interfering with their activities. It recalled, in that context, that the Council had repeatedly warned Iraq that it would face "serious consequences" as a result of continued violations.

OWNED!!!!!!!

[Divinus Arma]

You and your ilk are hearby owned. By me.

[Divinus Arma]

I'm with DA on this. Gonna have to label bush as Misguided, as opposed to actually a liar.

Man, I hate to distarct from the basking ownage, but I have to comment.

Consider: If Bush and everyone else thought that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction then...

...follow the dots...

...red pill or blue pill....?

Red Pill? You sure?

[Divinus Arma]

Everyone thought, but not everyone was ready and willing to act on it. Bush acted on it for a reason, and likely on bad advice that came from people with an agenda. It takes a lunatic to believe that Saddam would have launched nuclear weapons on America, knowing his entire country would be turned to glass as well.

That was never the threat.

The argument for war was this:

a. Saddam has Weapons of Mass Destruction
b. Terrorists would like WMD to destroy America
c. If Saddam gives terrorists WMD, then they get to stuff us in the pooper and Saddam can get away with it.
d. Terrorists were communicating with Saddam and shiznit was going down, imminent style.
e. We needed to take out Saddam anyway for gaffing the UN seurity resolutions anyway for 12 years.


Then it was:
a. Let's get the UN on board.
b. The UN is full of pussies, so let's get congress on board.
c. Congress looked at above argument and said "let's rocknrolla against that Saddam Ayatollah!"

NOW that their are no WMD, the liberals are trying to backtrack and say WOH WOH WOH. If we knew Saddam did not have WMD, then we wouldn't have voted for war. WELL NO KIDDING! NEITHER WOULD THE PREZZIE!!!

Then it just degenerates into a "yes you would no I wouldn't" baby battle.

Bottom line: Was intel wrong? YES. But here we are so lets fricking make it right and do the morally correct thing. Which is to make Iraq safe for democracy. Ya.

[PanzerJaeger]

I remember before the war, the big debate was whether Saddam would actually ever use his WMDs, on his own people, or on his enemies via terrorists or SCUD type vehicles.

Now people are trying to act as if everyone knew they didnt exist, which is complete revisionism.

[Meneldil]

I remember before the war, the big debate was whether Saddam would actually ever use his WMDs, on his own people, or on his enemies via terrorists or SCUD type vehicles.

Now people are trying to act as if everyone knew they didnt exist, which is complete revisionism.

Errr...well...
In France the debate was to know how long the US leaders would hide their war against the obviously full of crap argument of the WMDs. The same applies to Germany, Spain, Italy and probably to UK aswell. None ever believed the WMDs crap. Seriously. Saying otherwise *is* revisionism.

And I don't remember European intelligence services agreeing with the fact Saddam had WMD's, except in the UK (where, if I remember correctly, an agent who claimed it was a bunch of crap oddly 'killed himself', although I may be wrong on that, I wasn't in France when that happened)

[Ironside]

That was never the threat.

The argument for war was this:

a. Saddam has Weapons of Mass Destruction
b. Terrorists would like WMD to destroy America
c. If Saddam gives terrorists WMD, then they get to stuff us in the pooper and Saddam can get away with it.
d. Terrorists were communicating with Saddam and shiznit was going down, imminent style.
e. We needed to take out Saddam anyway for gaffing the UN seurity resolutions anyway for 12 years.

a. Not really, the arguments in media was ............(silence).............. IRAQ HAS WMD AND IS READY TO USE THEM AGAINST USA AND GB. And to prove this we repeat some rumours and show some weak evidence (some of them was even proved to be false before the war started), Saddam show us your WMD!
Saddam: No.
Bush: Let UN-inspectors come in and inspect or we invade!
Saddam: Uhm ok.
UN-inspectors led by Hans Blix arrive.
Blix: Were's not finding anything.
Bush: Look harder!
Blix: Still nothing.
Bush: Are you blind? They're there!
Blix: Give us some more time to determine if Saddam got them or not, we have just started.
Bush: NO! That's too dangerous, he might move them to Syria or something. Now get your ass out of there so we can invade to remove those WMD and uhm save those poor Iraqis from the evil dictator Sadddam (not sure when that argument started to be used, but it wasn't from the beginning).
And you can add the push for war in the UN and when that didn't work, US fixed thier own attack instead, and the rumoured connections with AQ and the comments that the invasion of Iraq is a part of the war on terror.
Does this feel like a removal of Saddam because of WMD or a removal of Saddam with the WMD as an excuse?

b. No disagrement here.

c. Why would he do that? What does he gain on wiping out Manhattan? If someone even breathe his name after that her'll be ousted by angry Americans that has full support by the rest of the world. He likes taunting the US publicly, but for that he has to be completly silent. How can he be certain that the terrorists won't use the supposed WMD against him? No gain and much to lose. And he has nevered appeared mad (except some paranoia) or willing to die for something like that.

d. That was based on even weaker stuff than the WMD:s, and negotiating with people that like to see you ousted isn't that smart most of the time (Saddam gives AQ some suppposed WMD, AQ uses is on the US and makes sure that US know that Saddam gave them the WMD= the situation equals today, but US got way more support for being in Iraq, on much less questionable grounds).

e. Another trown in argument, that unless something happens, only confirms that other movitations is behind the reason. You have endured it for the last 12 and it suddenly becomes a problem now?

WELL NO KIDDING! NEITHER WOULD THE PREZZIE!!!

That one is qustionable IMO.

I agree that it is pathetic that some people is backtracking that way. But never forget that there's a large part (especially outside the US) that has opposed the war from the very beginning, because it seemed to be started on false pretences.

Bottom line: Was intel wrong? YES. But here we are so lets fricking make it right and do the morally correct thing. Which is to make Iraq safe for democracy. Ya.

I agree. The only thing I fear is that if it's very successful, the next president might think that "that went fine. Iran next!" and the invasion method has a considerble risk to blow up in the face of the attacker. And the bigger the contry, the bigger the blow. So I hope for for a slow, annoying, but still considerble success in the end, with as few people dying as possible.

I remember before the war, the big debate was whether Saddam would actually ever use his WMDs, on his own people, or on his enemies via terrorists or SCUD type vehicles.

Now people are trying to act as if everyone knew they didnt exist, which is complete revisionism.

On this forum? I do remember talking about that if Saddam had WMD and used them, it would be most likely on his own people or a neighbour, but that the US and GB was safe, unless possibly if they invaded.

And you're fully missing the point that was used back then. It was that the Bush administration was using WMD and the war on terror as a pretext for invading Iraq, while the true purpose remains hidden. Why do you think the "war for oil" issue came up from the beginning? (no, I don't think that was the primary reason)

Then came the irony that Saddam didn't even have WMD (well, outside a few degraded artillery shells). Who's oppinion got more credability out of that? So who is it that's trying to revision the history?

[Lazul]

Couldnt have said it better Ironside.

[Tribesman]

You, more than anyone else here, fudge the facts. Support your accusations with facts. I know you hate Bush. Fine. We get it. I also don't think he lied. But PROVE me wrong with facts. Not conjecture. FACTS.

Which Facts would you like , Chiracs statement on the intelligence , Schroeders , Hues , Howards (hey he even we stated that he knew the intelligence was crap when he joined the war) ?
I know how about a really good one ...Putins , he headed an intelligence agency he should understand intelligence , now what was it he said about the intelligence put forward

Or even better would you like to look at the UNs reaction to the "intelligence" put forward by Powell Hey the UN had their own intelligence , what did they descide .

Facts , you can't handle the facts or you are suffering from memory failure
They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein.
Then they must also know , as Bush must also know , that intelligence agencies around the world did not agree with their assessment .

If Bush and everyone else thought that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction then...
But everyone else didn't did they Divinus , and the more information that was becoming available all the time was proving them to be right , is that why there was the rush to war ? because all the carefully gathered bullshit was unravelling

So who is it that's trying to revision the history?
My my Ironside , you do seem to have PWNED(or whatever that is) this topic in one sentance

[Kralizec]

A brief summary:

1) Saddam has WMD, we have compelling evidence (but we're not going to share it with you. Also, he's a nasty man.
2) Be patient as we're getting ready to present our smoking gun.
3) Patience...
4) SADDAM IS A BLOODLUSTED KILLER OMG WTF! LET'S OUST HIM!
(also, he has weapons. you know it.)
5) In fact, let's do it right now. *proceeds to invade*
6) Major succes! Now sit still and shut up, I'll get your proof already.
7) Proof is underway, we're looking for it right now.
8) Ok, maybe there were WMD, maybe there weren't, we ousted a terrible dictator and that alone justifies the invasion.

[ichi]

Lets start with the basics.

First, DA you seem unable to discuss politics without becoming personally abusive of others. I am not on crack, nor have you pwned me. Knock it off, please. BTW way I dont mind the large type, even tho you use it in an attempt to gloat over your incorrectly perceived victory, but as an older American the large type helps me. Too bad all you use it for is taunts.

Second, you hold others to higher standards than you hold yourselves.

You, more than anyone else here, fudge the facts. Support your accusations with facts. I know you hate Bush. Fine. We get it. I also don't think he lied. But PROVE me wrong with facts. Not conjecture. FACTS.

You demand facts yet seem willing to base your arguments on nothing more than your philosophy.

Let's look at some examples

c. If Saddam gives terrorists WMD, then they get to stuff us in the pooper and Saddam can get away with it.
d. Terrorists were communicating with Saddam and shiznit was going down, imminent style.
e. We needed to take out Saddam anyway for gaffing the UN seurity resolutions anyway for 12 years.

There is no evidence that Saddam intended to give terrorists WMDs. This idea fails to recognize that Saddam knew he couldn't attack the US without severe retribution; it characterizes him as an idiot, which he wasn't (a brutal madman, yes, but no idiot) cause he wanted control of the region, not a war he couldnt hope to win against the powerful country in the world.

Gelatinous Cube hit it right on the head with

Everyone thought, but not everyone was ready and willing to act on it. Bush acted on it for a reason, and likely on bad advice that came from people with an agenda. It takes a lunatic to believe that Saddam would have launched nuclear weapons on America, knowing his entire country would be turned to glass as well.

I'm not sure where you gets your facts about this alleged shiznit; is that a WMD or some sort of Iraqi prostitute? But the point is clear, no facts just conjecture on your part.

Other nations, including the US, have ignored UN security resolutions; why did we need to take him out when we fail to take out others. Again, I agree that Saddam needed to be overthrown, but I disagree with the reasons and method Bush used, think we have botched the job, and continue to see that you include your personal feelings as facts but are quick to condemn others for the same crime.

So I'll go back to the one fact you tried very hard to avoid, which is that there were no WMDs found.

Then I'll follow up on your press release of 8/11/2002. UN Inspections returned to Iraq on November 18, 2002.

From Hans Blix's report to the UN on January 27, 2003

UNMOVIC’s capability

Mr President, I must not conclude this “update” without some notes on the growing capability of UNMOVIC.

In the past two months, UNMOVIC has built-up its capabilities in Iraq from nothing to 260 staff members from 60 countries. This includes approximately 100 UNMOVIC inspectors, 60 air operations staff, as well as security personnel, communications, translation and interpretation staff, medical support, and other services at our Baghdad office and Mosul field office. All serve the United Nations and report to no one else. Furthermore, our roster of inspectors will continue to grow as our training programme continues — even at this moment we have a training course in session in Vienna. At the end of that course, we shall have a roster of about 350 qualified experts from which to draw inspectors.

A team supplied by the Swiss Government is refurbishing our offices in Baghdad, which had been empty for four years. The Government of New Zealand has contributed both a medical team and a communications team. The German Government will contribute unmanned aerial vehicles for surveillance and a group of specialists to operate them for us within Iraq. The Government of Cyprus has kindly allowed us to set up a Field Office in Larnaca. All these contributions have been of assistance in quickly starting up our inspections and enhancing our capabilities. So has help from the UN in New York and from sister organizations in Baghdad.

In the past two months during which we have built-up our presence in Iraq, we have conducted about 300 inspections to more than 230 different sites. Of these, more than 20 were sites that had not been inspected before. By the end of December, UNMOVIC began using helicopters both for the transport of inspectors and for actual inspection work. We now have eight helicopters. They have already proved invaluable in helping to “freeze” large sites by observing the movement of traffic in and around the area.

Setting up a field office in Mosul has facilitated rapid inspections of sites in northern Iraq. We plan to establish soon a second field office in the Basra area, where we have already inspected a number of sites.

Mr. President,

We have now an inspection apparatus that permits us to send multiple inspection teams every day all over Iraq, by road or by air. Let me end by simply noting that that capability which has been built-up in a short time and which is now operating, is at the disposal of the Security Council.

Ironside points this out very nicely in his rebuttal of your position.

Remember also that the UN Security Council refused to endorse the US-UK invasion until many months after it occurred, mainly because others were not convinced of WMD argument.

and actually, there were several facts that you ignored. You were so quick to dislocate your shoulder self-congratulating yourself that you failed to address the fact that there was a cabal of high-ranking admin types who had planned this war from before Bush's election, and that those same guys have made a very large trunkload o' cash off the war.

So lets look a little closer at your stuff

Then it was:
a. Let's get the UN on board.
b. The UN is full of pussies, so let's get congress on board.
c. Congress looked at above argument and said "let's rocknrolla against that Saddam Ayatollah!"

Not a lot of facts in there mate, but quite a bit a conjecture.

The UN was on board for Bush the Elders foray into Iraq, but not this time. Why? Because most of the world felt that there were no WMDs as we had stated.

I like the 'UN is full of pussies' thing. I wish it were so easy to take the High School jock approach to life, but on the scale of international politics testosterone poisoned machismo really is inadequate. But whatever.

Congress supported the President because he said 'trust me we have solid intel and sure-fire plan'. Now that it has been made clear that he lacked either, but instead wanted badly to go to war in Iraq and has since blown it, failing to achieve the 'right thing' and actually making it worse for many Iraqis, we as a poeple have the right to hold him accountable.

NOW that their are no WMD, the liberals are trying to backtrack and say WOH WOH WOH. If we knew Saddam did not have WMD, then we wouldn't have voted for war. WELL NO KIDDING! NEITHER WOULD THE PREZZIE!!!

But Bush did know, the whole WMD was a lie designed to sell the war. We (the neocons at the top) wanted to invade Iraq to gain control of the oil, the help our friends the Saudis, to finish the job Bush the Elder balked at, and to attempt to spread democracy to people who will probably use their votes to elect Muslim Theocrats.

The main point isnt that people (and not just liberals, a wide spectrum of Americans, including many vets) are backtracking on their support, the American public was lied to and we don't like that from our leaders. Many have died as a result of those lies and we have a right to expect leaders to be held accountable.

DA you may have strong feelings about this, and you may even dislike or even hate those who disagree with you. But please, try to be civil. Play the ball, not the man, and instead of insulting or gloating try to prove your point.

ichi

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

a little off topic but...

"He who gives up a little freedom for a little security will lose both and deserves niether."
~Benjamin Franklin

why do people keep wheeling that out? It's a nice little quote from a long time ago but people treat it like it's the gospel truth. I bet it's true in some circumstances but I also bet it's false in other circumstances.

[Geoffrey S]

Congress supported the President because he said 'trust me we have solid intel and sure-fire plan'.

Rather trusting of them, or a feeble excuse for their spineless following of the government into Iraq and subsequent backtracking? I'd think the latter, it being the prevalent attitude amongst initially pro-war politicians, particularly evident when Kerry was going for the presidency.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

a little off topic but...

"He who gives up a little freedom for a little security will lose both and deserves niether."
~Benjamin Franklin

why do people keep wheeling that out? It's a nice little quote from a long time ago but people treat it like it's the gospel truth. I bet it's true in some circumstances but I also bet it's false in other circumstances.

It's a trump phrase. You put that up there, and how can you come back against it? "What, you don't like Ben Franklin? Nazi..."

Means you don't need to have an argument.

[Red Harvest]

1. WMD's didn't exist in Iraq. Previously known arms and such were there, nothing new. The basis was incorrect.
2. The intelligence basis for WMD's was a lot of smoke, and NO FIRE. A lot of people in many countries *believed* he still had active WMD programs. The hard evidence wasn't there. This became apparent during Powell's presentation. It gave many of us watching pause, because we were expecting more.
3. The failure of both the President and the intelligence agencies was in letting beliefs guide them, without finding any hard evidence. The American people share in the blame, since I/we were fooled as well.
4. Adding to the blame above: Saddam's own approach was assinine...as was that of France, Germany, Russia, etc. He did his best to bluff like he might still have them on the one hand, while keeping a sort of empty shell game going. By not forcing Saddam to come clean/open up again with a powerful Security Council stance, the course was set. There was no turning back. I knew it, everyone else in the U.S. knew it. It was an ultimatum, it was ignored. Obviously, these nations did not want to actually avoid a war, but instead bitch about it incessantly once it happened.
5. Selling the war on WMD's was a fundamental mistake. The certainty was not there, and there were many other fundamental reasons to take Saddam out, rather than using tenuous links.
6. The AQ link doesn't hold up.
7. Others around the world can gripe, but the U.S. was stuck in the security role for Iraq, playing the "bad guy." If the rest of the world had done their job, there would have been no 2nd invasion. Europe as a whole is utterly inept at dealing with such problems. When they show some ability to handle these things without us, then they have the right to lecture us.

[Red Harvest]

a little off topic but...

"He who gives up a little freedom for a little security will lose both and deserves niether."
~Benjamin Franklin

why do people keep wheeling that out? It's a nice little quote from a long time ago but people treat it like it's the gospel truth. I bet it's true in some circumstances but I also bet it's false in other circumstances.

People quote it because it is an excellent warning about how autocratic control can be achieved through gradual measures.

[Kagemusha]

I feel that its ofcourse important to talk about the reasons and the thruth behind those reasons, why coalition invaded Iraq. But to me its far more important to to do something about the situation of Iraq.
Is coalition doing well there or does it look like if the resistance and terrorist attacks are going to escalate.
Its very easy to point out things that are wrong, but is it not more important to do something when the shit has hit the fan.
I can honestly say that i dont like the current administration of US,but well its US citicens own business who they want to run their country.
For international community and US in my view now would be a good time to sit down in a table. And talk is the project Iraq only US concern and can they handle it by them selves.I know that the European and other world governments has no obligation to go to Iraq, becouse they did not accept the Invasion when it happened. But would it be wiser to try to help US and its allies to calm the situation down there? Or just stand by and criticize. Wouldnt it be better to help now when things look remotely good, or do it only in the case when the shit has hit the fan in whole area which could cost a lot more in many ways? I know its not very appealing idea for Nations that didnt want things to go this way but would it be wise?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Red Harvest - correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you wouldn't have had a problem with the war if:

A) it hadn't been sold on WMDs
B) it was being run to your liking
C) Bush wasn't running it

And I do agree generally with the Ben Franklin quote, just that you can't just type it up and follow it with a " " and win an argument.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yup its hard to believe but for the most part I agree with Red Harvest. Though for instance there were missles there that exceeded the range they were allowed to have. His general summary is pretty much how most americans see it I think.

[Aurelian]

I meant to post on this issue earlier in the week when Gawain put up the list of "Saddam is a threat" quotes from various Democrats. Unfortunately, real life got in the way and I never got around to it. So, woot, another chance!

Okay, all this talk about "the Democrats thought he had WMDs too" is part of a big PR push the administration has been getting ready for some time now. They're dying in the polls, and they're hoping to confuse you to get you back on board the crazy train.

Here's an example of the main line of attack as delivered by Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, at a Thursday news conference:

"I point out that some of the critics today believed themselves in 2002 that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction... They stated that belief, and they voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq because they believed Saddam Hussein posed a dangerous threat to the American people. For those critics to ignore their own past statements, exposes the hollowness of their current attacks."

Here's why you shouldn't fall for another serving of the administration's BS:

1) If some Democrats in the House and Senate believed in 2002 that Saddam had WMDs, it's because they were getting that impression the same way that the American people were: from the White House.

Congress doesn't have its own intelligence agency... it relies on intelligence assessments provided to it by the Executive Branch.

The White House, however, has full access to all of the intelligence data from the various agencies under its control. In order to sell their war, the White House carefully cherry-picked the intelligence that it chose to pass on to Congress and the American people.

What the White House did was to blanket the press with alarmist statements about the supposed threat from Saddam, his WMDs, and his ties with terrorists. They made positive firm declarations that they "knew" Saddam had WMDs, that they had "proof" that he had ties with al-Qaeda, etc.

Those declarations were lies because not only was there no consensus within the intelligence community on which those assertions could be made, but most of the specific information that the administration was using as "evidence" was either being strongly challenged by experts or heavily hedged with warnings about the unreliability and uncertainty of the information.

The Bush administration took information that they knew the intelligence community considered uncertain at best, and they turned around and presented that information to the American people as certain proof that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, was actively trying to acquire more (including nuclear weapons), and that he had ties to al-Qaeda terrorists.

House and Senate Democrats did not have full access to the classified intelligence. They were not able to judge the full intelligence picture, and were left, like the American people, in a situation where they had to rely on the information that they were given by the administration.

The administration was able to control the flow of information even to the Senate Intelligence Committee. By controlling the information put in the National Intelligence Estimate, and by refusing to declassify the information that could have been used to undermine their case for war, the administration was able to keep Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee from sharing the true state of intelligence with their colleagues and the public. Read:

Graham and Durbin had been demanding for more than a month that the CIA produce an NIE on the Iraqi threat--a summary of the available intelligence, reflecting the judgment of the entire intelligence community--and toward the end of September, it was delivered. Like Tenet's earlier letter, the classified NIE was balanced in its assessments. Graham called on Tenet to produce a declassified version of the report that could guide members in voting on the resolution. Graham and Durbin both hoped the declassified report would rebut the kinds of overheated claims they were hearing from administration spokespeople. As Durbin tells TNR, "The most frustrating thing I find is when you have credible evidence on the intelligence committee that is directly contradictory to statements made by the administration."

On October 1, 2002, Tenet produced a declassified NIE. But Graham and Durbin were outraged to find that it omitted the qualifications and countervailing evidence that had characterized the classified version and played up the claims that strengthened the administration's case for war. For instance, the intelligence report cited the much-disputed aluminum tubes as evidence that Saddam "remains intent on acquiring" nuclear weapons. And it claimed, "All intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons and that these tubes could be used in a centrifuge enrichment program"--a blatant mischaracterization. Subsequently, the NIE allowed that "some" experts might disagree but insisted that "most" did not, never mentioning that the DOE's expert analysts had determined the tubes were not suitable for a nuclear weapons program. The NIE also said that Iraq had "begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents"--which the DIA report had left pointedly in doubt. Graham demanded that the CIA declassify dissenting portions.

In response, Tenet produced a single-page letter. It satisfied one of Graham's requests: It included a statement that there was a "low" likelihood of Iraq launching an unprovoked attack on the United States. But it also contained a sop to the administration, stating without qualification that the CIA had "solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." Graham demanded that Tenet declassify more of the report, and Tenet promised to fax over additional material. But, later that evening, Graham received a call from the CIA, informing him that the White House had ordered Tenet not to release anything more...

Five of the nine Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, including Graham and Durbin, ultimately voted against the resolution, but they were unable to convince other committee members or a majority in the Senate itself. This was at least in part because they were not allowed to divulge what they knew: While Graham and Durbin could complain that the administration's and Tenet's own statements contradicted the classified reports they had read, they could not say what was actually in those reports.

Bush, meanwhile, had no compunction about claiming that the "evidence indicates Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program." In the words of one former Intelligence Committee staffer, "He is the president of the United States. And, when the president of the United States says, 'My advisers and I have sat down, and we've read the intelligence, and we believe there is a tie between Iraq and Al Qaeda,' ... you take it seriously. It carries a huge amount of weight." LINK (very good article)

Due to the White House's control over the available intelligence, and the way they manipulated that intelligence to give the impression of certainty, it is only understandable that a significant number of Democratic figures, like the public at large, bought the administration line on the nature of the threat from Iraq.

Part 2 tomorrow…

[Adrian II]

1) If some Democrats in the House and Senate believed in 2002 that Saddam had WMDs, it's because they were getting that impression the same way that the American people were: from the White House.

Congress doesn't have its own intelligence agency... it relies on intelligence assessments provided to it by the Executive Branch.

Excuse me, even I knew at the time that the WMD claims were nonsense, Powell's presentation in the UN Security Council was nonsense, the links with Al Qaeda were nonsense. Your darling Democrats chose to go along with the nonsense and lend it credibility, in the same way as they went along with the Patriot Act. The difference being that the Bush administration and the Neocons at least have some views and ideals worth lying for. The Democrats have nothing resembling a political opinion anymore.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Sometimes Adrian you show true flashes of brilliance.

[Redleg]

Excuse me, even I knew at the time that the WMD claims were nonsense, Powell's presentation in the UN Security Council was nonsense, the links with Al Qaeda were nonsense. Your darling Democrats chose to go along with the nonsense and lend it credibility, in the same way as they went along with the Patriot Act. The difference being that the Bush administration and the Neocons at least have some views and ideals worth lying for. The Democrats have nothing resembling a political opinion anymore.

And what Aurelian/s post doesn't explain is why former Democratic President Bill Clinton believed while he was in office that the Iraqi regime might have WMD, nor does it explain away his position after he left the office.