Bush, Cheney concede Saddam had no WMDs

[Guest Cerebus]

Points to this thread.

[Guest Loss]

I used to have the line of thinking that invading Iraq was a bad thing because it wasn't Iraq that attacked us on 9/11 and because no WMD's have been found. But there's far more to it than that, and it involves being able to look at the big picture. This is called the War On Terror for a reason -- it's not a war on a nation, or even a specific ideology. It's a war in support of global freedom. I fancy myself as a liberal, and it's for that reason that I feel obligated to support this war -- it's a human rights movement and I'm a compassionate person. Anyone who supports women's rights should be backing this war, because an oppressed gender will be getting rights they never would have gotten otherwise. Anyone who thinks children deserve the opportunity to have better schools and get a better education and not be disease-ridden should support this war. Dare I say that the "we can only take care of our own" philosophy I've seen in Bush's opposition is far more jingoistic than being proud of America for standing strong. If this was a war for oil, there would already be talks of building an air base in Iraq, and no such talk has happened. To say that Saddam Hussein wasn't responsible for 9/11 is to not understand the bigger picture and the bigger threat. Steps have to be taken to ensure that the death of 3,000 innocent civilians, of ANY nationality, never happens again. That's why it's so disheartening to see other nations, who will benefit from this in the long run, not supporting the cause.

 

If we are victorious, and realize that this isn't a single-minded issue, our children and their children will live in an even better world than we've managed to live in, and that's a major accomplishment. It will be easier over time for them to travel internationally and to study abroad. The AIDS epidemic will be fought. Poverty will be fought. Classism will be fought. The world will be a better place because more people will be getting more opportunities than ever before. That, to me, is what being liberal is all about, at least by definition -- seeing everyone (not just Americans) get a chance to succeed under the best circumstances possible.

 

Sadly, sacrifices do have to be made, and many great men and women, American or otherwise, are going to have to lose their lives to further the cause. That's sad. I wish it wasn't the case. But it is the case. That's the mere reality of the situation. I do think America is doing a really good job overall showing support for the troops fighting in this war, and they have my undying respect and gratitude for sacrificing their lives to further a largely humanitarian cause.

 

What confuses me the most is that after looking at the same intelligence Bush saw, Kerry voted in favor of this war, yet he now says that it was a mistake. It has now been proven that there is no tie that exists between 9/11 and Hussein and that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I can understand Kerry's logic in thinking the invasion was a mistake at this point, but Bush saw the same intelligence he did and came to the same conclusion he did. How is that Bush's fault? If it was a bad judgment call, then both of them are guilty of making the wrong decision. How was Bush supposed to know that in advance, and how can he be blamed for what has happened since?

 

We were past the point where bilateral talks or reasoning would work. We became past that point about one second after the first plane crashed into the World Trade Center. And no, I'm not using that to justify going to war in Iraq -- this is not an act to protect America exclusively, it's an act to protect the world at large. Iraq was a threat to the world at large. There are more -- namely Iran and North Korea -- and Bush has driven that point home so many times that I don't see how anyone paying attention could accuse him of diversion. We can look for Osama Bin Laden and liberate Iraq concurrently. Both are worthy causes. I'm proud to say we have the resources and the intelligence to do just that.

 

I think those who think we have to find Osama Bin Laden before shifting directions have read too many works of literature. This isn't a two-act play that requires us to get to Point A before we go to Point B. This is reality, and it's not fought in rounds.

 

Sadly, I used to strongly oppose the war, until I actually did my own personal research and listened to Bush and read about his stance instead of just taking what I heard as gospel. It was a different Bush than I had been told existed. He's not perfect, and there are still a few issues where I think we're worlds apart, but he's far more capable of looking at the bigger picture than for which he gets credit, and he's adapted to the changing demands of his position after 9/11 as well as anyone could expect. History will be very kind to him, even if the present is not. Luckily, he's focused more on doing the right thing than winning popularity contests. It's not very politician-like of him, so I can see why many are taken back by his approach.

[Red Baron 0]

You know he used him, but the reason was to search for WMD, not taking out a threat.

 

 

Actually, eliminating a threat was a more regularly cited reason.

 

 

Okay Mike, say that before Saddam was taken down, and it's like day 2 of the Iraqi campaign. I don't think you said Saddam was a major threat then, until the "conquer" of Iraq

[Swift Terror 0]

Just FYI here:

 

 

"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

 

"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 |

 

"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 |

 

"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

 

"[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 |

 

"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

 

"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

 

"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

 

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

- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

 

"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

 

"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 |

 

"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 |

 

 

"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

 

 

 

 

and the piece de resistance:

 

 

"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

 

Apparently Hillary is one of the dummies who watches Fox News and actually believes the Iraq-al Qaeda connection...

[Guest MikeSC]

You know he used him, but the reason was to search for WMD, not taking out a threat.

 

 

Actually, eliminating a threat was a more regularly cited reason.

 

 

Okay Mike, say that before Saddam was taken down, and it's like day 2 of the Iraqi campaign. I don't think you said Saddam was a major threat then, until the "conquer" of Iraq

You would be quite incorrect.

 

BTW, Loss stated reality far more eloquently than I can.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

From the Kaus Files:

1) If a man says he has a gun, acts like he has a gun, and convinces everyone around him he has a gun, and starts waving it around and behaving recklessly, the police are justified in shooting him (even if it turns out later he just had a black bar of soap). Similarly, according to the Duelfer report, Saddam seems to have intentionally convinced other countries, and his own generals, that he had WMDs. He also convinced much of the U.S. government. If we reacted accordingly and he turns out not to have had WMDs, whose fault is that? Why doesn't Bush make that argument--talking about Saddam's actions in the years before the U.S. invasion instead of Saddam's "intent" to have WMDs at some point in the future? (It wouldn't necessarily make the Iraq war prudent, but it would make Americans feel more comfortable about it than what Bush has been telling them.)

http://slate.msn.com/id/2107823

-=Mike

[Guest INXS]

Finally, they concede there are no WMD's! I could have told them that a couple of years ago or they could have even just read the findings of their own inspection team and of the UN inspection team. Now their justification of the illegal, bungled invasion is that Saddam was evil and had to go in order to make the Iraqi people free from persecution and in order for them to lead beter lives in a democracy. Someone please tell me how Iraq is now a safer, more prosperous place without Saddam.

[Guest MikeSC]

Finally, they concede there are no WMD's! I could have told them that a couple of years ago or they could have even just read the findings of their own inspection team and of the UN inspection team. Now their justification of the illegal, bungled invasion is that Saddam was evil and had to go in order to make the Iraqi people free from persecution and in order for them to lead beter lives in a democracy. Someone please tell me how Iraq is now a safer, more prosperous place without Saddam.

Well, YOU'RE not there, so it's better than this board right now, apparently.

-=Mike

[EricMM 0]

We understand that mike, but how about a little honest NOW???

[Guest MikeSC]

We understand that mike, but how about a little honest NOW???

What's supposed to happen?

 

What kind of ass-backwards person would APOLOGIZE for removing a sub-human chimp like Saddam?

 

Jesus. I'll save my concern for ACTUAL humans.

 

Now, if only Saddam would get beheaded on video...

-=Mike

[Guest GreatOne]

You know I'm just waiting for somebody to pull a Kerry and say 'Whether this war was right or not depends on the outcome'

 

Good to know that....................

[Guest INXS]

I'd prefer to see a guy who has actually done something to us get killed on video like that guy, what's his name B..Bi..Bin..I forget.

[Guest Loss]

I'd prefer to see a guy who has actually done something to us get killed on video like that guy, what's his name B..Bi..Bin..I forget.

INXS, I have to ask -- are you so narrow-minded that you only care about bad people who have done something to "us"? We're just as much a part of this nation as we are a part of this world, and the things Saddam was doing to his own people were horrific. It was hard to gauge the reality of life in Iraq at that point because he manipulated the media so much in his favor, and what we did know was scary enough. Imagine what we don't know. There are probably details that have yet to be uncovered that go beyond the realm of comprehension in how horrific they are. We've seen enough hints in that direction as it is.

 

As Mike said, Saddam was putting forth the image of being dangerous, and I'll admit he was putting forth the image of being far more dangerous than he actually had the potential to be. But are we to ignore that? And why does it have to be a choice? Invading Iraq and capturing Saddam Hussein doesn't prevent us from seeking and killing Osama Bin Laden. The whole "one thing at a time" approach is so predictable that a fourth grader could figure it out. I'd like to give our military more credit than that.

[EricMM 0]

it's not the removal that warrents the apology, it's the invasion, and all that it cost.

[Guest Loss]

it's not the removal that warrents the apology, it's the invasion, and all that it cost.

Bush saw bad intelligence. I don't think he should apologize, if only because of the bad message it sends to our allies. We're in this for the long haul, and things like military morale and the trust our allies have for us is very important. Projecting an image is every bit as important for the President as protecting us and keeping us safe. In fact, they go hand in hand. I'm shocked that many think they contradict each other.

[Guest MikeSC]

it's not the removal that warrents the apology, it's the invasion, and all that it cost.

Bush saw bad intelligence. I don't think he should apologize, if only because of the bad message it sends to our allies. We're in this for the long haul, and things like military morale and the trust our allies have for us is very important. Projecting an image is every bit as important for the President as protecting us and keeping us safe. In fact, they go hand in hand. I'm shocked that many think they contradict each other.

How about this?

 

Should FDR's family be expected to apologize for his pursuit of the atomic bomb because he, mistakenly, believed Germany was soon going to develop it themselves?

-=Mike

[Justice 0]

Loss, for all his posts in this thread, has my complete respect right now.

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

Should FDR's family be expected to apologize for his pursuit of the atomic bomb because he, mistakenly, believed Germany was soon going to develop it themselves?

 

Was that faulty intelligence too?

 

The question isn't whether or not Saddam should have been taken out or not, the question is, did our President purposefully mislead the American people in order to go to war?

 

As I've said before, I don't think Bush in particular did mislead us on purpose. However, I do feel that someone in his administration had to know what was going on, and since Bush is the leader, it's on his head.

[Justice 0]

Should FDR's family be expected to apologize for his pursuit of the atomic bomb because he, mistakenly, believed Germany was soon going to develop it themselves?

 

Was that faulty intelligence too?

 

The question isn't whether or not Saddam should have been taken out or not, the question is, did our President purposefully mislead the American people in order to go to war?

The Senate Committee has said that he didn't alter or press the CIA for bad information. He was given information and told it was solid. Just read the last report the CIA issued on Iraq before the war. This has been dicussed before.

 

In all likelihood, they probably didn't mislead the public on purpose. It's not their fault that, well, every intelligence agency in the world turned out to be WRONG.

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

In all likelihood, they probably didn't mislead the public on purpose. It's not their fault that, well, every intelligence agency in the world turned out to be WRONG.

 

And that doesn't seem the least bit odd to you?

[Justice 0]

In all likelihood, they probably didn't mislead the public on purpose. It's not their fault that, well, every intelligence agency in the world turned out to be WRONG.

 

And that doesn't seem the least bit odd to you?

That every intelligence agency in the world was wrong? Am I missing the clause in the Constitution where the President is responsible for this?

[Guest Loss]

Question -- I don't have an opinion one way or the other really ...

 

Do you think we'd have better intelligence if we had smaller government?

[Styles 0]

Question -- I don't have an opinion one way or the other really ...

 

Do you think we'd have better intelligence if we had smaller government?

The beauracracy could always be made smaller and more efficient. I'd rather have people in their positions because of skill and merit rather than tenure.

 

And I too have to chime in and give mad props (is that how the kids say it?) to Loss for his posts in this thread. He has earned my respect big time, and has shown himself to be more progressive, intelligent, forgiving and tolerant than most mainstream "liberals" can ever claim to be.

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

That every intelligence agency in the world was wrong? Am I missing the clause in the Constitution where the President is responsible for this?

 

I just think you're a wee-bit too trusting given the circumstances.

[Guest MikeSC]

That every intelligence agency in the world was wrong? Am I missing the clause in the Constitution where the President is responsible for this?

 

I just think you're a wee-bit too trusting given the circumstances.

OK, WMD (heh-heh, irony) --- you are looking at this with the lovely gift of hindsight.

 

It's easy to look back and snipe at problems.

 

AT THE TIME OF THE WAR, nobody thought Saddam lacked WMD --- hell, not even Hans Blix said that, and he couldn't find his ass with both of his hands.

 

Bush acted on the info given to him. And, to be honest, Kerry ALSO would have acted on the same info given to him (well, he's said he'd do nothing different also).

Question -- I don't have an opinion one way or the other really ...

 

Do you think we'd have better intelligence if we had smaller government?

Honestly, no.

 

To get better intel, we have to be willing to deal with people that are just the scum of the Earth (as a rule, nice people seldom have useful intel). We have to be willing to deal with some exceptionally unpleasant people.

-=Mike

[cbacon 0]

I used to have the line of thinking that invading Iraq was a bad thing because it wasn't Iraq that attacked us on 9/11 and because no WMD's have been found. But there's far more to it than that, and it involves being able to look at the big picture. This is called the War On Terror for a reason -- it's not a war on a nation, or even a specific ideology. It's a war in support of global freedom. I fancy myself as a liberal, and it's for that reason that I feel obligated to support this war -- it's a human rights movement and I'm a compassionate person. Anyone who supports women's rights should be backing this war, because an oppressed gender will be getting rights they never would have gotten otherwise.

 

WOW. Human rights? You honestly believe this war was a battle for human rights? Not withstanding the thousands of casualties, what actions has the US taken to ensure such human rights in Iraq besides bombing the place. They advocate one thing like bringing 'democracy' to Iraq which will NEVER happen, and the same time they support dictatorships and have their hands sharing pockets with countries that severley opress their own people. Saudi Arabia comes to mind as one of them. But they dare not meddle in their affairs, oh no. Oppresed genders? It's funny that Iraqi women have had the right to vote since 1980(in respect to their respective parties) while at the same time two strong American allies such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait supress women's right's even further. It's an easy scape-goat and public pandering to exploit human rights like ths. This war on terror is simply for the Bush Administrations own self interests.

 

 

Concerning such revelations, Washington Post editor Walter Pincus wrote the following…

 

 

 

    "More than two years ago, I wrote a book with former U.N Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter. The book was short, and to the point: Evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was being wildly exaggerated by George W. Bush and members of his administration. No threat was evidenced. The matter could be handled by weapons inspectors, who had already eviscerated Saddam's stockpile.

 

    This was truth, September 11 or no September 11.

 

    Now: 1,064 American soldiers are dead in Iraq. More than 17,000 American soldiers have been 'medically evacuated' from Iraq, suffering everything from menstruation to missing limbs and faces, if you know how to read between the carefully parsed DoD lines.

 

    More than 20,000 Iraqi civilians - people like you and me, people like you and me, people like you and me, people like you and me, people like you and me - have been killed. Tens of thousands more have been maimed, orphaned, or otherwise struck to the heart.

 

    How many of these will become 'terrorists'?

 

    One of these days, telling the truth will be worth something."

[Guest MikeSC]

I used to have the line of thinking that invading Iraq was a bad thing because it wasn't Iraq that attacked us on 9/11 and because no WMD's have been found. But there's far more to it than that, and it involves being able to look at the big picture. This is called the War On Terror for a reason -- it's not a war on a nation, or even a specific ideology. It's a war in support of global freedom. I fancy myself as a liberal, and it's for that reason that I feel obligated to support this war -- it's a human rights movement and I'm a compassionate person. Anyone who supports women's rights should be backing this war, because an oppressed gender will be getting rights they never would have gotten otherwise.

 

WOW. Human rights? You honestly believe this war was a battle for human rights? Not withstanding the thousands of casualties, what actions has the US taken to ensure such human rights in Iraq besides bombing the place. They advocate one thing like bringing 'democracy' to Iraq which will NEVER happen, and the same time they support dictatorships and have their hands sharing pockets with countries that severley opress their own people. Saudi Arabia comes to mind as one of them. But they dare not meddle in their affairs, oh no. Oppresed genders? It's funny that Iraqi women have had the right to vote since 1980(in respect to their respective parties) while at the same time two strong American allies such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait supress women's right's even further. It's an easy scape-goat and public pandering to exploit human rights like ths. This war on terror is simply for the Bush Administrations own self interests.

 

 

Concerning such revelations, Washington Post editor Walter Pincus wrote the following…

 

 

 

    "More than two years ago, I wrote a book with former U.N Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter. The book was short, and to the point: Evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was being wildly exaggerated by George W. Bush and members of his administration. No threat was evidenced. The matter could be handled by weapons inspectors, who had already eviscerated Saddam's stockpile.

 

    This was truth, September 11 or no September 11.

 

    Now: 1,064 American soldiers are dead in Iraq. More than 17,000 American soldiers have been 'medically evacuated' from Iraq, suffering everything from menstruation to missing limbs and faces, if you know how to read between the carefully parsed DoD lines.

 

    More than 20,000 Iraqi civilians - people like you and me, people like you and me, people like you and me, people like you and me, people like you and me - have been killed. Tens of thousands more have been maimed, orphaned, or otherwise struck to the heart.

 

    How many of these will become 'terrorists'?

 

    One of these days, telling the truth will be worth something."

Does somebody wish to shred this? I've had enough fun with him.

-=Mike

[Guest Loss]

WOW. Human rights? You honestly believe this war was a battle for human rights?

I don't know if that was the exact reason, but that's going to end up being a huge byproduct, yes.

 

Not withstanding the thousands of casualties, what actions has the US taken to ensure such human rights in Iraq besides bombing the place.

 

Iraq is holding elections in January, for starters.

 

They advocate one thing like bringing 'democracy' to Iraq which will NEVER happen, and the same time they support dictatorships and have their hands sharing pockets with countries that severley opress their own people. Saudi Arabia comes to mind as one of them.

 

So, are you saying we should have invaded Saudi Arabia after 9/11? Two wrongs don't make a right. Saddam was a bad person who is no longer in power. Stop trying to spin that as a bad thing.

 

But they dare not meddle in their affairs, oh no. Oppresed genders? It's funny that Iraqi women have had the right to vote since 1980(in respect to their respective parties) while at the same time two strong American allies such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait supress women's right's even further.

 

I don't know about Saudi Arabia, but Kuwait is a relatively new democracy that's moving at a lightning-fast pace. Women are treated with an incredible amount of respect there and it's obvious they'll have the right to vote in due time.

 

It's an easy scape-goat and public pandering to exploit human rights like ths. This war on terror is simply for the Bush Administrations own self interests.

 

What has Bush actually gained from this war? He's gone against popular opinion when he felt it needed to be done, risked polarizing the nation (or worse, turning them against him) and has not attempted to build an air base in Iraq. Why would others in his administration also support this if that were the only reason we were there?

 

And if the war on terror is just for Bush's own self interests, why does John Kerry want to continue it? And why did he, and John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi, and most other Democrats, vote in favor of this war?

 

They're only backing out now for political reasons. It's election year, you know.

[Guest MikeSC]

But they dare not meddle in their affairs, oh no. Oppresed genders? It's funny that Iraqi women have had the right to vote since 1980(in respect to their respective parties) while at the same time two strong American allies such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait supress women's right's even further.

 

I don't know about Saudi Arabia, but Kuwait is a relatively new democracy that's moving at a lightning-fast pace. Women are treated with an incredible amount of respect there and it's obvious they'll have the right to vote in due time.

If the Saudi spokesperson on O'Relly last night is to be believed, they are having local elections next year and are working towards a democratic system.

 

That, of course, is if the spokesperson is to be believed.

 

And, is C-Bacon trying to defend Iraq's voting rights for women (you know, the whole "vote Ba'ath --- or DIE!" thing)?

It's an easy scape-goat and public pandering to exploit human rights like ths. This war on terror is simply for the Bush Administrations own self interests.

 

What has Bush actually gained from this war? He's gone against popular opinion when he felt it needed to be done, risked polarizing the nation (or worse, turning them against him) and has not attempted to build an air base in Iraq. Why would others in his administration also support this if that were the only reason we were there?

 

And if the war on terror is just for Bush's own self interests, why does John Kerry want to continue it? And why did he, and John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi, and most other Democrats, vote in favor of this war?

 

They're only backing out now for political reasons. It's election year, you know.

Hell, before Dean's explosion, they couldn't have been hawkish enough.

-=Mike

[snuffbox 0]

Why does the anti-Bush crowd here at TSM have to include so many space oddities like Bacon? Its really quite embarrassing.