Victory - Iraqi Freedom

[Dr. Shane]

Brother Bravus, the line "Bush lied" just doesn't get any traction. All our allies' intelligence agreed Saddam had WMDs, Saddam's own intelligence thought he had WMDs up until shortly before the war began, Saddam was known to support terrorist groups like hamas and President Putin warned Bush that Saddam was planning an attack on the US with WMDs. It would have been completely irresponsible for Bush to wait while the UN inspectors to played hide and seek with Saddam. Bush did what John Kennedy did with Castro. Unlike Castro, Saddam called Bush's bluff and the rest is history.

[Bravus]

I was very carefully *not* saying 'Bush Lied'. I agree - he thought the weapons were there. I was saying he should have listened to more people, and more specifically that Rummy shouldn't have been creating his own special intelligence arms to bring back the intelligence they wanted. Want to argue that the neocons weren't casting their eyes toward Iraq before 9/11?

I think, with the information he had, Bush genuinely thought the WMD were there, and I've never said otherwise.

Then there's the question of what he did with that - my preference would have been to let the UN process play out, you say there wasn't time - on that we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Dr. Shane]

Brother Bravus, I think most would agree that given hindsight, there was time. We now know Saddam didn't have WMDs so there was a lot of time. But hindsight is always 20/20. At the time Bush had to behave as if President Putin's information was correct.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

let the UN process play out

---

We now know the UN process was 'played out' long before. With the corruption, and "oil for food" money actually going to fund terrorists, the UN was fatally compromised.

Besides, how can you expect an organization where the majority of nations are despotic, and many have no respect for human rights in their own countries, to administer anything like justice?

Even "international consensus" means nothing if the consensus is formed by non-consensual governments.

How do you propose that the assent of non-legitimate governments could then lend legitimacy to any international action?

How can the judgments of immoral governments give any action 'moral authority'?

[there buster]

Quote:

---

honestly repeating what you hear from Ahmed Chalabi because he says what you want to hear, and ignoring lots of other people

---

Yeah. The difference between fact and assumption doesn't usually begin to sink in until around 6th grade. Even my college and grad school students continued to have trouble with that one. But it can be learned.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

We now know Saddam didn't have WMDs so there was a lot of time. But hindsight is always 20/20. At the time Bush had to behave as if President Putin's information was correct.

---

The UN inspectors were IN IRAQ. If the USA had any specific knowledge on where these mythical WMD were, all they had to do was tell the inspectors to go an look.

The inspectors asked the USA to tell them where to look.

The inspectors told the world, clearly and in no uncertain terms, that they weren't finding anything.

Bush lied. He told the world he was certain, when in fact he knew he was not certain.

/Bevin

[there buster]

Quote:

---

If the USA had any specific knowledge on where these mythical WMD were, all they had to do was tell the inspectors to go an look.

---

History contradicts you. Saddam Hussein blocked the UN inspectors for twelve years. Suddenly he's going to let the inspectors go wherever they want? He never did, without endless obstruction. By the time they got to a site, there was no way of knowing whether something had been there or not.

Quote:

---

He told the world he was certain

---

Certain of what?

I'd like to see that quote. In context.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Certain of what?I'd like to see that quote. In context.

---

NPR played a montague of radio clips from Bush, Chenny, Rumsfeld and Rice....At the begining of thier administration, they "knew" that Saddam had WMDs. A few weeks later, as the montague went on, they were "certain". Then it was there is a "certain possibility" that there were WMD. Then it was "certainly possibile" that there were WMDs...

Oh, Bush knew he was lying to the American public...He knew....

[Dr. Shane]

Rush Limbaugh played a montague of clips from Clinton, Gore and Kerry that they knew Saddam had WMDs too. So what is the point? Everyone thought he had WMDs. Saddam was bluffing and trying to fool the world into believing he had something he didn't.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Oh, Bush knew he was lying to the American public...He knew....

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Did God reveal that to you in a divine vision? Oh, and do you quit breathing when you have these visions?

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Rush Limbaugh played a montague of clips from Clinton, Gore and Kerry that they knew Saddam had WMDs too. So what is the point? Everyone thought he had WMDs. Saddam was bluffing and trying to fool the world into believing he had something he didn't.

---

What does this have to do with Ed Dickerson's comment on wanting to see the context?

Stay on track, Shane. This is and you are attempting to poison the well....

[bevin]

Quote:

---

Suddenly he's going to let the inspectors go wherever they want? He never did, without endless obstruction. By the time they got to a site, there was no way of knowing whether something had been there or not.

---

At the time Bush pulled the trigger, the inspectors had been were saying for months that were getting good access and were not finding any evidence of WMD.

You are an excellent example of why Rove's 'stay on message' strategy is working so well for the Republican's. They find that, if they just keep on lying long enough, many people will forget the truth.

Of course, it helps if you buy columnists to get 'on message' also.

It also helps if the Democrats can't figure out a way to expose/fight it - such as montages like those mentioned earlier.

/Bevin

[there buster]

Sorry, your mistake.

I was following the reports from Iraq on the internet.

Inspectors would show up somewhere, be denied access, have to come back the next day, sometimes the next week. This could be verified in any number of foreign media, most of them hostile to the Bush administration.

On any given day I read reports from dozens of sources, all of them independent from, and many hostile to, the Bush administration.

YOU are going to have to come up with something more than accusations. It's a tired act.

[aldona]

letter to the editor of "The Australian" today...

(quote)

Much as I don't want to be called a "whining lefty", perhaps the neo-cons can stop gloating long enough to read the headline from The New York Times on September 4, 1967: "US Encouraged By Vietnam Vote: Officials Cite 83per cent Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror."

Matt Hardin

Tarragindi, Qld

(end quote)

(not a response to anybody in particular, just adding to the thread)

aldona

[there buster]

Beating a Dead Parrot- Why Iraq and Vietnam Have Nothing in Common by Christopher Hitchens

From Slate magazine.

The last paragraph

Quote:

---

I suppose it's obvious that I was not a supporter of the Vietnam War. Indeed, the principles of the antiwar movement of that epoch still mean a good deal to me. That's why I retch every time I hear these principles recycled, by narrow minds or in a shallow manner, in order to pass off third-rate excuses for Baathism or jihadism. But one must also be capable of being offended objectively. The Vietnam/Iraq babble is, from any point of view, a busted flush. It's no good. It's a stiff. It's passed on. It has ceased to be. It's joined the choir invisible. It's turned up its toes. It's gone. It's an ex-analogy.

---

[bevin]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/02/15/wblix115.xml

"Since we have arrived in Iraq we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. [:"red"]All inspections were performed without notice and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming.[/]

"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2698741.stm

"No evidence

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency said his inspectors had found no evidence that Iraq had resumed the nuclear programme it discontinued in the early 1990s.

But Mohamed ElBaradei said the inspectors needed "a few months" to continue their work, describing this as "a valuable investment in peace".

In his report, Mr Blix said Iraq had largely given inspectors prompt access to suspected weapons sites.

"

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/27/iraq/main538131.shtml

http://encarta.msn.com/text_701610462___2/U_S_-Iraq_War_of_2003.html

"The UN inspections produced a mixed record. On one hand, Iraq granted access to former and suspected weapons sites that had previously been concealed. The Iraqi government also agreed to destroy certain missiles that were capable of hitting targets more than 150 km (90 mi) away (a range prohibited by previous disarmament agreements). On the other hand, Iraq did not facilitate private interviews with Iraqi scientists and weapon makers, and the government was not forthcoming about the details of its earlier weapons programs. In a February 28, 2003, report Hans Blix, the head of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), concluded that Iraq had cooperated with the process for conducting inspections but had not provided sufficient information or tried hard enough to resolve the considerable uncertainties about the status of Iraq’s weapons program.

The UN Security Council was sharply divided about what action to take next and faced an impasse. In order for a Security Council resolution to pass, 9 out of 15 members must vote for it. However, any of the 5 permanent members may veto it. The United States and Britain (permanent members of the Security Council) and Spain (a nonpermanent member) favored a second resolution that would have set a March 17, 2003, deadline for Iraq to disarm or face the consequences. But France, Russia, and China (permanent members) and Germany (nonpermanent member) were opposed, arguing that it was too soon to give up on the inspections. Most of the other nonpermanent members also opposed military action. The opposition of France and Germany, longtime U.S. allies, particularly troubled the Bush administration.

"

[Bravus]

And Ed, I respect you and your views a lot, but quoting Christopher Hitchens? Not really a credible journalist on this particular war, having been one of its most enthusiastic cheerleaders from well before it started.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Iraq did not facilitate private interviews with Iraqi scientists and weapon makers, and the government was not forthcoming about the details of its earlier weapons programs. . . . . had not provided sufficient information or tried hard enough to resolve the considerable uncertainties about the status of Iraq’s weapons program.

---

The burden of proof was on Iraq, according to the UN resolution.

The fact that France, Germany, Russia, and China were opposed was directly related to the fact that they were all in bed with Sadaam Hussein's regime, profiting off of his deception and despotism.

France, Germany, Italy, and Japan all opposed the Normandy landings, too.

[there buster]

I should think you would love Hitchens, considering he has been part of the far left all his days. I mentioned him only because of his anti-Vietnam stance and leftist views.

So if a person disagreed with you from the outset, you don't find him credible? Wow, now that's limiting.

[Bravus]

Disagreement I can definitely cope with, but cheerleading... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Seriously, once again I really hope Vietnam parallels are mistaken. But it doesn't hurt to learn from the lessons of the past. That report is from 1967, and the US was still losing boys in Vietnam in 1975. What will Iraq look like in 8 years, in 2013? Will there still be American troops there (apart from in the massive new bases, I mean)? What will the rest of the Middle East look like then?

It's just sensible to take a longer view, rather than to say 'yay, lots of people voted, GWB has been vindicated'!

[there buster]

Quote:

---

It's just sensible to take a longer view, rather than to say 'yay, lots of people voted, GWB has been vindicated'!

---

Precisely why you should read the article. Hitchens opposed the Vietnam War, and thus is in an interesting position to compare and contrast the two.

I read lots of people I don't agree with. I would have thought you would, too.

[Bravus]

I do, I just don't quote them (much). OK, I surrender - on the issue of your quoting Hitchens. I still disagree with him (and I did read the article). All the non-parallels he quotes are interesting - and I definitely learned some history reading the article - but no-one is claiming Iraq *is* Vietnam, they're seeing some parallels. Actually, reading between the lines, there are excellent reasons that Iraq is in many ways *more* dangerous to the US than Vietnam was - and is becoming more dangerous still.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

At the time Bush pulled the trigger, the inspectors had been were saying for months that were getting good access and were not finding any evidence of WMD.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

If you honestly believe this it shows how bad your news sources are or were. The Hans Blix said Saddam was not being forth coming (although he [Hans] wated more time). Shortly before we invaded the inspectors found a banned weapon and the Iraqis claimed it was one they forgot to destroy. At the time of the invation Hans Blix said he couldn't be sure there were no WMDs.

[bevin]

Shane, I provided a direct quote from a reputable newspaper.

However, this has been a distraction. The truth is GWB said he was certain.

That means he either lied or was incompetent. It doesn't matter what the weapons inspectors said.

GWB said he was certain - and he was wrong. GWB's twin inabilities to (a) admit to uncertainty, and ( admit to mistakes are bad flaws to have in a leader. It means that they keep on making mistakes.

In particular he keeps on announcing successes - and underestimating costs.

/Bevin - who just got home from watching "Hotel Rwanda", which shows the incredible danger that a previously oppressive minority is in when the majority gains control...

[there buster]

I'd like to see the quote.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

If you honestly believe this it shows how bad your news sources are or were. The Hans Blix said Saddam was not being forth coming (although he [Hans] wated more time). Shortly before we invaded the inspectors found a banned weapon and the Iraqis claimed it was one they forgot to destroy. At the time of the invation Hans Blix said he couldn't be sure there were no WMDs.

---

Oh good night...PLease tell me that you are joking....or playing some sort of weird twisted joke, Shane....Because if you ain't, you sure don't have a leg to stand on....You are ignoring all the news reports [and there were many] that showed 1] George Bush "knew", "was certain" "absolutely had WMDS" and 2] any WMDS that Saddam had, were provided by the US and were used without consent of the US , by Iraq against thier percieved enemies. 3] photo footage of Hans going into areas, leading up to the war, before denied after the first Iraqi war... 4] see the articles that Bevin has linked to. They are actual reports from mainline newspapsers...

Shane, you are just making stuff up.....