Bush’s premise for the Iraq war were built almost completely upon those WMD, however, this was not enough for the doubters who demanded proof, Bush needed at the very least to weaken their arguments, so he threw up a shitstorm of ‘other reasons’ to prop up the very creaky, and since proven, utterly bankrupt authority of ‘intelligence’.
If those other reasons were enough to go to war, then why bother with the WMD ? Why not use those other reasons based upon their own merits ?
I don’t remember too much debate at the UN concerning these other issues.
Because had these been the only arguments, then it would have been pointed out that such abuses were and are still taking place an an even greater scale elsewhere.
Those other reasons were there not out of reasoned logic, or principled determination, they were there to show just what a goshdarned nasty person Hussain is, Bush was pandering to the lowest intellects and wayward emotions in order to undermine the cold hard logic of those who wanted some exceptional evidence of a clear and present danger to the US and its allies.
Since there were no WMD, then it stands that those other reasons must now take precedence, so following that logic, when will the US whip up international frenzy and deal with Burma, Zimabawe, Sudan, Eastern Sahara, Congo.
None of these nations would present a real military challenge to the US and yet they all abuse human rights, from basic human rights all the way through to genocidal activity, up to and worse than Iraq.
None of them are known for their oil industries though, so perhaps those pressing other reasons are not as pressing as they are in Iraq.
You yearn for the days when people wished they could take the word of the US President face value, you must be much much older than I thought, and not merely wise beyond your years.
Perhaps Bush’s Apologists should tattoo the above post to their foreheads, because I’ve never ever seen a more ‘forgetful’ bunch in my whole rather extensive life.
See,** Age Quod** et al, it really is as simple as John says it is: No WMD hype = no invasion. As it was and is, WMDs and Saddam’s supposed willingness to use them, were the only possible justification to engage in a war of aggression against a sovereign nation. Reasons are twofold – and both having to do with marketing:
1-To sell the invasion to the American public under the unlikely rubric of clear and present danger. And please, let’s top fuckin’ tap dancin’ around the exact wording – the message came through loud and clear, especially to those gullible enough to give it credence. Unfortunately, too many of you.
Personally, I thought it was completely ludicrous from the start. Any, and I do mean any, attack on the US that could be remotely linked to Saddam, would bring about the complete and utter annihilation of Iraq – Baghdad, little more than a radioactive parking lot. Think Saddam didn’t know that? Think there’s any world leader insane enough to go head to head VS the mighty US of A? Further, why do you think terrorists work the way they do? Because it is the only way to hurt the US. Unconventional warfare takes your superpowers away much like kryptonite did with Superman – see, if you hadn’t figured it out yet, it brings you down to their level.
Say what you will about OBL and Co, but don’t, for a minute, think they are dumb. Yeah, they are scumbags and murderers, but they’ve also laid out a plan. A plan that I might add, is working. For all the neocon fantasies about the ME and dreams of empire, they’ve been amazingly shortsighted in learning how to deal with the fly in the ointment. For if you take the time to read their rather lengthy agenda, you’ll notice that for all the mentions that Iraq and Saddam merit in their planning, there’s an amazing paucity of substance in how to deal with Islamic extremism. Never mind much mention of the actual root of the problem: the obvious to anyone but the wilfully blind, lopsided pro-Israel bias in American foreign policy. Well, that’s not really true, it does get mentioned often – but only to harden the bias.
Much more I could write on the topic, but don’t want to get overly sidetracked.
2-An attempt to garner a thin veneer of legality vis-à-vis the international community. Remember, for as much as many of you hold the UN and international law in utter contempt, all pre-war polls showed, at least initially, that a majority of Americans would back the invasion* only with the approval of the UN*. So it was indeed important to at least appear to have tried to garner the approval of the rest of the world. When few bought what you were selling, like spoiled children, many of you decided that the UN had “become irrelevant,” that the French were weasels and that you had God on your side. Not necessarily in that order. Mix and match to taste.
Thing is – gaasp! – the French, the Germans, the Russians, the Chinese, the Chileans, the freakin’ Polynesians and just about everyone in the rest of the world that opposed this invasion – who also let him know in no uncertain terms with the largest anti-war marches in history – and refused to bite Bush’s lure, were, and remain to this day, RIGHT. And I do mean right, as in right down to the aftermath we’re seeing.
And yet some of you still have the balls – and ovaries – to keep defending the MF who led you straight into this clusterfuck. Even better, you finally elected the deranged murderous fuck and his acolytes and consiglieri.
Fine. Enjoy. But don’t ask for help, understanding or cooperation from the rest of the world. Duck! That’s a HUGE slice of humble pie coming right down the pipe.
Enjoy that too.
I look forward to the day that the US returns to the community of nations but I don’t that happening any time soon…
It is time for the Bush apologists to stop quibbling about the “exact wordings”, fishing for some slim loophole. The simple truth is, Bush wanted a war. His reasons were false. WMD. Al QUeda link. Freedom. Democracy. Protecting America. They were all false, no matter what brush the apologists want to paint them with. They were all irrelevant. Bush wanted a war, and any excuse would have sufficed. Maybe he has some sick dream of empire. I for one don’t share that dream.
No. Scylla said that we should wait until Thanksgiving 2003 and see if any WMDs were found before stating positively that they weren’t there. Scylla still thinks that that was a pretty fair and reasonable rationale, giving the administration a reasonable period of time to produce the evidence that would prove or disprove it’s case. This period of time coincided with the release of the Kaye report on WMDs Jumping to conclusions beforehand would have been unreasonable. Scylla predicted that WMDs would be found by that time. He was wrong in this last.
Excuse me? I don’t see what I’ve said that justifies that last, and frankly I find such sentiments as prejudiced and offensive as you would find it if I misquoted some argument of yours to make you look bad and used that to make some general deprecatory statement concerning gay people.
As I said in another thread, the Bush-bashers should pay more attention to this “exact wording” thing, if you’re talking about “imminent threat”. The reason I say that is because Bush very purposely didn’t use the “imminent threat” argument. The Bush doctrine is that we cannot wait until a country like Iraq becomes am imminent threat-- we need to strike them BEFORE they do. This, I think, is a bigger concern than if Bush had simply tried to finesse his way through an imminent threat argument.
You’re right, Bush set the action point at “grave and gathering danger” rather than “imminent threat.” Now we can only hope that the country has learned that such a loose standard leaves too wide a margin for error, hysteria and cynical manipulation.
A number of interesting conclusions can now be drawn.
The American right is in the interesting position of having the Lumpenproletariat onside (OK maybe not that interesting).
Remember all those CNN reports of proud post-WTC sign-ups in Iraq, “Defending their country from the Iraqi threat” Where are they now? Awful silent ain’t they.
Proves we can finally put to rest the tired and tattered line of there being “honor” in the US military. It is a day long overdue, that word’s had too much abuse on that continent.
Why did people ever believe there were WMD? Moreover, why argue it here? There was never any evidence.
I for one oppose universal suffrage, so don’t tell me the arguments on this board are left v right. This one was always empiricist thinkers vs the crackpot credulous.
And the liars. Of course there are always those who were indifferent to the conclusions of evidence. The worst of all, those who played along with the story because it was their tean’s line.
Yes Sevastapol, I know who Bolton was. He got caught out several times with ‘off message’ comments, and was widely regarded as a loose cannon, so I don’t think you can take his use of ‘imminent threat’ as indicating that the admin as a whole used that argument.
Bush himself was quite careful not to use the term.
I’ve checked with the Professional Association of English Majors, and the general consensus is that a “grave danger” is, by definition, a present danger. It is a fact of the moment, one is in grave danger. I think can safely skip any discussion of the meaning of “growing”. Therefore, a “grave and growing threat” means something even more immediate than “imminent”, which indicates a future tense, a danger that is approaching.
Since the threat never existed in the first place, “grave and growing threat” is even further from the truth.
