Bush Backpedaling on WMD?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Yankee Doodle RE:Bush Backpedaling on WMD? 4/26/2003 11:42:18 PM

>I just wonder about whether, historically, a truly successful foreign policy was ever spun from such a tissue of lies. How is it a "tissue of lies" when you admit that "the Bush people DID expect to find them"? How is it a tissue of lies when the search is not yet complete? "At the very least it gives me pause that the same people who delivered the lies" - You destroy your own argument by admitting that they are telling what they believe to be the truth. "mostly spin" - Then there is some element of the truth? "those of us who were skeptical (which means most of the world) were right." - Except perhaps in Berkeley, "most of the world" doesn't get a vote here. We have to decide for ourselves the correct course of action.

Quote Reply

PlatypusMaximus RE:Bush Backpedaling on WMD? 4/27/2003 12:03:30 AM

In order to avert a hypothetical 9/11 type attack, in which we lost 2,800 people, we went to war with a nation that was at peace with us and killed perhaps 10,000 of their people, the vast majority of whom were innocent civilians or young men unlucky enough to be serving in their ersatz army talk about spin.......

Quote Reply

PaulG RE:Bush Backpedaling on WMD? 4/27/2003 12:58:23 AM

Yankee, Tissue of lies -- perhaps overstatement. But the fact seems to be emerging that the Bush Admin did not really go to war for its stated reasons; they had another agenda. Maybe that was a worthwhile agenda, but it went unstated while they threw up what amounts to a smokescreen. Sources in the article (did you read it?) indicate that the primary purpose of the war was as an example to others, an intimidation tactic. I don't know about you, but I think it raises big moral issues if we really killed 10,000 people in order to intimidate others into behaving the way we want them to. That was a tactic the Nazis used in occupied Europe (remember Lidice?). The Nazis, I'm sure you know, don't rank very well on the morality scale. Platy, Hm?

Quote Reply

FourF RE:Bush Backpedaling on WMD? 4/27/2003 6:34:16 AM

Oh Geez, here come those dumbass Nazi comparisons again. Go back to school and learn what the Nazis were really like. Oh, wait never mind, there's a more recent example. During WWII the Nazis created a middle east branch of their party called the Baath party in Syria and Iraq. Those are the friggin Nazis, OK? As for the stated reason for going to war, it was more often said to be "regime change" for a variety of reasons. One was the terrorist connection, which has since been shown to be true, including connections to Al Qaeda itself, but also every other group of lowlife scum imaginable, Hammas, Islamic Jihad, etc. Another reason was attrocities against it's own people and it's neighbors which has been shown to be orders of magnitude worse than we could have imagined. The other, still as yet "unproven" is the last straw to which leftists can cling. It's only been a few weeks, give it a bit more time. The evidence is mounting and will soon be overwhelming to all but the most blind Saddam appologists. 4F

Quote Reply

PaulG RE:Bush Backpedaling on WMD? 4/27/2003 5:48:02 PM

4F, Your argument is not with me; it's with the Bush administration officials who are now coming clean. They're the ones who did the spinning, not me; I simply suspected it and my suspicions have proven correct. Before lumping me with whoever it is you were arguing with about Nazi comparisons, I suggest you read the article and perhaps read my own posts more carefully. As detailed in the article, the reasons Bush cited for going to war (which you cite also) -- replace an oppressive regime, terrorist ties, WMD -- apply to other rogue nations as well. The question was asked repeatedly during the buildup -- why Iraq? Why not these other regimes? The reason we were told was that the threat from Iraq was the most imminent. Turns out that was b.s. The reason was that Iraq provided an opportunity to showcase American military might so as to encourage other nations to behave. Which raises the moral issue I brought up previously, which those responding so far have not addressed: Is it morally justifiable to murder 10,000 innocent people in order to influence the behavior of other governments? Ultimately, there may be a great good that will come out of this. Certainly dispatching 10,000 innocent people is a weekend's work for a regime like Saddam's, and that regime is gone. The peoples of the Arab world are long overdue for responsive, responsible government, and if that's what springs from Saddam's grave, those 10,000 will not have died in vain. It's the seaminess and immorality of this administration that gives me pause. If they deceived before, what makes anyone think they won't deceive again? Perhaps those hereon who so blindly believe in Bush and find any criticism of him abhorrent/incomprehensible/unpatriotic will be proven correct: when he says he'll devote his administration to democracy in Iraq he will do so. I hope you're right. If Bush's performance in rebuilding Afghanistan is any indication, though, those 10,000 (not to mention the 100+ we lost) will have died in vain.

Quote Reply

SGTObvious Paul, I think you are misreading the article 4/27/2003 6:17:59 PM

The article does not state that any officials beleive the WMD reports were false. The article states that in the opinions of some administration officials, it was not the most important reason for the war, even though it was presented as the most important reason. WMD were never presented as the "only" reason for the war. Indeed, the name is "Iraqi Freedom" not "get rid of Iraqi chemical weapons". However, the WMD issue was the only issue that could be used to bring UN pressure to bear. There is, unfortunately, no UN resolutions banning the support of terror, funding or inspiring terrorists, and in general providing support to the "Death to America" crowd. Had Busb said, from the beginning "Iraqi development of chemical and nuclear weapons is a problem, but the biggest factor is really that we just cannot allow the existence of a regime that openly applauded the 9-11 attacks" I would have said, fine by me, that's enough to warrant destroying that government. But, this would not have flown with many in the world. Had Bush said "we're doing this to free the Iraqi people from their cruel and oppressive leaders", again, for me it should have been sufficient given the circumstances but as we have seen a great many people wished the brutal enslavement of the Iraqi people to continue, either becuase it fed their bank accounts, or because it was "anti-American". The world has turned around entirely since 1960. Once upon a time, the US government would support any regime, no matter how corrupt or cruel, as long as it was anti-communist. Now, the anti-American crowd will support any regime, no matter how corrupt or cruel, as long as it is anti-American. Very odd, that. You could be a cruel adn sadistic leader on par with Ivan the Terrible, Vlad the Impaler, or Saddam Hussein, but as long as you finish your speeches with "Death to America, Death to Israel" you will find a world of supporters. So, faced with a belief that Saddam had to go, for a variety of reasons (ther is fairly broad agreement that the world is better off without him) the administration searched forst for a way of legalizing it. There were other possibilities. We could have legalized it entirely merely by declaring that we were entering the legally existant war between Israel and Iraq, on Israel's side. Entirely legit but the Arabs would have had a major Aus-Freak over that one. Blair, you may recall, did discuss a number of reasons for removing Saddam. When he did, the pro-Saddam crowd (there were no such things as "peace advocates" as in the status quo the Iraqi people were certainly not experiencing peace, there were merely pro and anti saddam factions) castigated Blair for being inconsistent. So, it was damned if you do and damned if you don't. Personally, I believe that even if we never find drums of poison, we have uncovered sufficient evidence of the existence of chemical programs. We have also done the Iraqis an incalculable good. The civilain losses they sustained were negligable compared to the losses they were taking under Saddam, (See The Onion for more on this) and now they have a real chance at making a nation. Since you would certainly blame the Bush administration for unintended bad results, it is only fair to give them full credit for any good results. The results speak for themselves, not only are the Iraqis publicly protesting and worshipping, but payments to terrorist bombers have stopped. Given all that we have accomplished, does it matter why? IS there a single "why"? Don't you think it more likely that a confluence of factors convinced Bush and Blair that this had to be done?

Quote Reply

spectre RE:Paul, I think you are misreading the article 4/28/2003 8:35:39 AM

I think the WMD question is more nuanced than simply we thought they had them, we said we knew we had them, we can't find them -- therefore we shouldn't have invaded. WMD was "only" one of the arguments made for an invasion (I emphasized that word with quotes because I don't mean to belittle the argument by use of the word). People who were resistant to the thought of going to war with Saddam said two things: WMD wasn't as big a threat as Bush was making it out to be, and Bush was tossing about a number of different reasons why Saddam was a threat. But Bush did need more than one reason, simply following from the first point, and there was more than one reason. But, let's focus on WMD for the moment. First of all, Saddam used chemical weapons on Iraqi citizens and on Iranian troops. That for me justifies regime change by itself. The sanctions that went in place after cessation of hostilities in '91 had gradually been eroded and lost effectiveness. The will of good people to do good things that are difficult is very hard to maintain over time. The sanctions, the way they were deteriorating, were not going to last. Saddam might have given an order, at the very end of the buildup when the pressure was most intense and it was obvious that we were going in, to discard evidence. We have found a number of suspicious things, like missiles that he wasn't supposed to have, planes buried in the desert. Still, it's quite possible that finding a smoking gun has become very difficult. Saddam might have only given that order when he knew we had passed the tipping point and weren't going to back down this time. So in order to get Saddam to give up his WMD, we had to do more than just sanctions, which he had proven that he could outlast. We had to show we were actually going to go in. You can't fake some things. In this case, building up the forces to go in was a very delicate matter. Our "allies" in the region were hesitant to support the influx of enough troops to show we weren't kidding. The cost of the buildup was high. Politically, to expend that cost and put the troops there, and not use them, would have guaranteed that Saddam would never have to comply with any request for proper inspections because any threat short of war was realized by him to be a bluff. As recently as 1998, a U.S. president saw fit to bomb Baghdad because in his opinion, Saddam was not complying with the cease-fire agreement. That kind of remote spanking has its uses, but also it's a punishment that loses effectiveness over time. The U.S. could have stood down again, this time. Think through what would have resulted. There are times when actions have to be taken that are not pleasant, that involve risk, that will probably leave things not as good as they once were. Treatment of cancer is a medical circumstance that may be considered analogous. The treatment sometimes leaves the patient in pretty bad shape -- but the patient gets a chance to live. I think removing Saddam from Iraq is like this.

Quote Reply

American Kafir RE:Paul, I think you are misreading the article 4/28/2003 9:07:52 AM

People seem to be ignoring the fact that Saddam was given the opportunity to show UN inspectors the evidence that he had destroyed his weapons stockpiles and dismantled the means to produce them. What we've found is that Saddam hid his weapons stockpiles, and buried the means to produce them for use later. It has been the United States' position all along that Iraq was lying to and attempting to decieve UN weapons inspectors. You can't dig up buried WMD precursor chemicals and mobile bio-weapons labs and conclude that Iraq was not hiding its WMD capabilities from UN inspectors. Just like the US said they were.

Quote Reply

PaulG RE:Paul, I think you are misreading the article 5/1/2003 1:26:04 AM

Sarge, I?m not sure where you get your handle, but it is ?obvious? to me that you write well thought out, cogent posts. You?ve raised some very good issues; for purposes of this topic I will restrict myself somewhat. This is the portion of the ABC news article that got my red American blood boiling a bit (quoted here as ?fair use,? not copyright infringement): ?The Bush administration wanted to make a statement about its determination to fight terrorism. And officials acknowledge that Saddam had all the requirements to make him, from their standpoint, the perfect target. ?Other countries have such weapons, yet the United States did not go to war with them. And though Saddam oppressed and tortured his own people, other tyrants have done the same without incurring U.S. military action. Finally, Saddam had ties to terrorists ? but so have several countries that the United States did not fight. ?But Saddam was guilty of all these things and he met another requirement as well ? a prime location, in the heart of the Middle East, between Syria and Iran, two countries the United States wanted to send a message to. ?That message: If you collaborate with terrorists, you do so at your own peril.? Yes, there were other justifications trotted out by the admin, but they seem to have been cover. The idea of spreading democracy around the world was a song they started singing late in the game, long after our troops were building up in the Persian Gulf. At the very least, I?m skeptical that this administration, which is easily the most anti-democratic in my lifetime (starting with playing fast and loose with ballots in FLA, continuing through Ashcroft?s torching of the Bill of Rights and the Rep party?s attempts to vilify as ?unpatriotic? anyone who dares criticize G.W.) would suddenly become interested in an expensive, long-term project of spreading democracy and freedom around the world. Look: it may turn out to be true; maybe G.W. of all people will prove to be the man who set the torch of liberty ablaze all across the Middle East. If so, I?ll applaud; it?ll prove that God has a sense of humor after all. His track record is what makes me skeptical. But the issue at hand for me is this: we were told repeatedly that the Bush people did not want war and would only resort to it as a last resort; we were told that they wanted things resolved diplomatically but that war came only when all diplomacy was exhausted; we were told Hussein had ties to al-Qaeda and had a dangerous amount of WMD. It?s now becoming clear that all of these assertions were false. The ABC news article cited administration officials as saying that if Hussein had backed down it would have sent just as strong a statement, but clearly that doesn?t square with either the above quoted material, or with Bush?s actions. A diplomatic solution would not have allowed him to make his militaristic statement. That?s why Bush changed his tune from disarmament to regime change late in the buildup ? that was a virtual guarantee of war. That?s also why they probably rushed into combat before the 4th Mech was in position. Any delay might have allowed Hussein a chance to cooperate, and cooperation would have killed their strategy. What bothers me about this is that apparently a group of neocons in this administration, none of whom have served their country or seen combat, decided a hundred or so American deaths and 10,000 or so Iraqi deaths are okay as long as they can make a statement. In my book, that?s cold-blooded murder. In your post you made some statements that seemed to me would elevate the moral tone of the game of nations: punishing oppressive states, rooting out those who hatch WMD and terrorist ties. Those are noble and honorable goals. If you were president you?d get my vote. I do not know whether the evidently ignoble and dishonorable administration we have is capable of handling such a task.

Quote Reply

PaulG RE:Paul, I think you are misreading the article 5/1/2003 1:33:15 AM

Spectre, You've raised many good points and done so cogently. I think I addressed them somewhat in my reply to the Sarge. To those hereon who agree, as I do, that we do have an opportunity to make the world a better place by elevating what is considered acceptable behavior among leaders of nations, using military might to back up the higher moral standard, I think a fruitful discussion can be joined about how to bring this about. I think Sarge came to grips with this elsewhere some time ago in a rumination about the role of international institutions in this. In this particular topic, though, I more narrowly address how this administration has behaved, and in it voiced my skepticism about it -- at the very least it seems a deeply flawed vessel for conveying us into this new world. I don't know if dishonesty can beget good policy; maybe it can. After all, Roosevelt promised to keep us out of war while signing the Atlantic Charter and ordering American destoyers to drop depth charges on German u-boats. He, too, was desperate to provoke a war. But something tells me Roosevelt was a very different animal from G.W. I hold out the hope that I may be wrong.

Quote Reply

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT