Bush: Iraq Invasion Worth It Despite No Trace of WMD

[Squink]

A few Bolton highlights:

Before I address the specifics of Syria’s WMD programs, let me first discuss press reports that Iraq covertly transferred weapons of mass destruction to Syria in an attempt to hide them from UN inspectors and Coalition forces. We have seen these reports, reviewed them carefully, and see them as cause for concern.

here 09/03

The Bush administration has said repeatedly that we are concerned that Cuba is developing a limited biological weapons effort, and called on Fidel Castro to cease his BW aspirations and support of terrorism. Existing intelligence reporting is problematic, and the Intelligence Community’s ability to determine the scope, nature, and effectiveness of any Cuban BW program has been hampered by reporting from sources of questionable access, reliability, and motivation.

here 03/04

Iran has informed British, French and German officials it could produce weapons-grade uranium within a year and a nuclear weapon no more than three years after that, Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton said Thursday.
“These Iranian assertions give the lie to their public contention that their nuclear program is entirely civil and peaceful in purpose,” Bolton said in an interview.

here 09/04
Bolton shot his mouth off, off message, a lot, these past 3 years. It’s little wonder that Condi got him fired.

[Sevastopol]

Am I then incorrect in my belief that he was promoted?

(no hidden message in this post, curiousity only)

[RedFury]

@John Mace

IAs 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.

Old news, John. The trodden argument of pre-emptive Vs preventive. And I agree, the latter is ultimatedly the strategy in place – which onlu makes it that much worse.

Question is – for me anyway – knowing as much why keep sticking up for Dear Leader as you have and still do? At your succint best as you’ve been here you’re very effective in pointing out the fallacies and dangers of current US policy.

So, no need to answer, 'cause this is rather a personal query and out of bounds in the context of the current discussion, but I must admit that having said what you have – which I obviously agree with – I am curious as to why you still go to such lenghts to defend BushCo*. The whole Neocon-influence exchange we had just such an example.

*Yes, I also know how uncouth some of you find the mocking of the President’s name. However I don’t and won’t, as long as he behaves the way he does, offer any apologies for disrespecting a man I have no respect for – at all. Hopefully, most of you will be able to distinguish my personal scorn for the man himself, and the respect for the office he holds. Up to you (all of you) to get that respect back to it.

[Squink]

@Sevastopol

Am I then incorrect in my belief that he was promoted?

Yeah, Bolton’s out:

Jan 7, 2004
John Bolton, the State Department’s top international security official, will leave the post in the second Bush administration and be replaced by an arms control specialist at the National Security Council, a senior U.S. official said Friday.

He wanted second spot to Rice at state, and didn’t get it. There’s not much detail on what actually happened, resignation or firing. I’ve seen stories saying he resigned, others that Condi fired him.
With him out of the way, maybe we’ll finally be able to do something about the North Korean crisis.

[Sevastopol]

grateful

[Rashak_Mani]

I’d like to go back to the fact that the Bush administration didn’t make a good “sell” of the war to the UN and the international community.

We felt the “building up” phase to Iraq in Brazil especially becuase months before a high profile brazilian UN officer in the Nuclear Agency or Chemical Weapons that was inconvenient to the US was substituted with heavy handed politics. He was trying to (from what I remember) to make Iraq comply with some treaties… and these might make Iraq less of a rogue state. The fact that there had been troops building up a long time for some time… and the total lack of opposition within government make a case for a long buildup.

So there was all this american momentum to invade Iraq… and there was very little effort to “convince” outsiders of the reasons. When Powell went before the UN to make his case… I was sure he was going to show VERY CONCRETE evidence. After all the US was so committed… The effect was that it came across as “I don’t care”… and after Powell… “I don’t need reasons”.

Now if this is simply short sighted... "everyone knows that Saddam is evil why would they oppose us"... or unilateral "they won't support us so lets go around them". In both cases it creates the silly precedent of "might is right".  No laws were "enforced" no "consensus vs Rogue states" was created. 

So will future rogue states fear "western" invasions more ? Will other countries avoid dabbling with nukes ? Will support for terrorism diminish ? I think not. Iraq might be "better off"... but overall I think the US has gained almost nothing for so much effort... terrorists have gained a lot... and no concrete legacy is a result of disregarding a united effort.

[John_Mace]

@RedFury

Question is – for me anyway – knowing as much why keep sticking up for Dear Leader as you have and still do? At your succint best as you’ve been here you’re very effective in pointing out the fallacies and dangers of current US policy

I only look like I’m sticking up for him here. Among my friends IRL, I’m known as the anti-Bush guy. At any rate, I look at any given policy and dedide whether I agree with it or not. Some of Bush’s policies I like and some I don’t like. And often, the debates on this board center around nothing at all, just taking one more opportunity to bash Bush. I suppose if I were smart, I’d just stay the hell out of those debates altogether.

So, no need to answer, 'cause this is rather a personal query and out of bounds in the context of the current discussion, but I must admit that having said what you have – which I obviously agree with – I am curious as to why you still go to such lenghts to defend BushCo*. The whole Neocon-influence exchange we had just such an example.

Firstly, because I find the term “neocon” to be of little use. More often than not, it’s used by folks on the other side of the aisle to deride those they disagree with. It’s not a term that people use to self-identify. But if we were to assume that such a term had a precise meaning, I wouldn’t call Bush a neocon, even though some in his adminstration are.

Secondly, and more directly related to that thread, that discussion arose out of a debate about what Democrats should do. Your arguement (IIRC) was that Dems needn’t worry too much because the Republicans had built a house on a neocon foundation, which would soon cumble. While it’s certainly true that the Iraq invasion can be called a “neocon” initiative, the invasion of Iraq is hardly fundamental to the Republican platform and is certainly not why the Republicans did so well in the last election. In fact, I’d say they did well DESPITE the invasion of Iraq. That thread was about parties and what policies the parties should advocate, not individual politicians. Forget about Bush. He barely squeeked by to get re-elected. The real story of November was the gains the Republicans made in Congress, and the gains they made at the state level.

Kerry could have won had he run a better campaign. Or even with the campaign he ran, he still could have won had circumstances been just slightly different. But if he had won, I doubt we’d be looking at a Congress that would be any different from the one we have now.

[RedFury]

Appreciate your reply, John

Too tired at the moment to compose a worthy respose. I’ll just say for the time being that you’ve raised an interesting and valid dichotomy that I find worth discussing in finer detail. Perhaps a topic worthy of a thread of its own – maybe I’ll put something together over the weekend.

However, it still appears rather obvious to me that you’re vastly understimating the power of the Neocon influence/ideology on US policy.

If you have an hour or three to spare, this site has an extremely comprehensive analysis of the movement, its roots, its members, their positions, influence, etc.

Anyway, that’s about all I could muster by way of reply for the time being.

Thanks again.

~Red

[elucidator]

Well, that’s the consolation turd, isn’t it? Kerry’s not president, so as the handbasket continues on it’s infernal trajectory, the Pubbies aren’t trying to pin the blame on him. And they would, you know they would.

Slowly but surely, approval point by approval point, the people are catching on, and when they do, a whole lot of Pubbies are going to show us how rats behave in a nautical emergency.

[cmkeller]

casdave:

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 ?

Maybe because the very serious likelihood of WMD was the most compelling amongst several also compelling reasons? Maybe because the possibility of WMD set Iraq apart from other tyrannical regimes which might otherwise have seemed to be equally apt targets? Maybe because it makes more sense to bundle up all the reasons into one argument rather than make a separate speech for each reason?

Sorry, this is weak, weak, weak. You can’t say he didn’t say give other reasons. You can argue from today till tomorrow that for an interpretation of those statements as being insincere, but that doesn’t sound like “Bush lied!” to most people. Because they heard him say it.

[ZombiesAteMyBrain]

Willie Nelson’s viewpoint

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/lyrics/whateverhappenedtopeaceonearth.html

[ElvisL1ves]

@John Mace

Forget about Bush. He barely squeeked by to get re-elected. The real story of November was the gains the Republicans made in Congress, and the gains they made at the state level.

Got to disagree somewhat. The GOP gains in Congress in 2004 are essentially entirely due to DeLay’s unprecedented redistricting in Texas. If they’d followed the rules, we’d see nearly no change. The gains at state level are not of landslide levels either, and can also be attributed to Bush’s coattail effects. He campaigned on fear of terror, contempt of liberals taking your money, and most of all fears of gay marriage - that brought out the fundie vote that didn’t exist before, and wasn’t available to Kerry anyway. Bush’s strongly supported an anti-gay amendment during the campaign but dropped it even before the inauguration - he played the fundies for suckers and it worked.

But if he had won, I doubt we’d be looking at a Congress that would be any different from the one we have now.

Agreed, but mainly because of our tradition of ticket splitting that was partially subsumed this time around. Kerry would have to clean up Bush’s messes, with the GOP Congress led by DeLay hounding him at every turn because that’s what they do. About the only good thing that came from this is that they can no longer effectively use their favorite tactic of blaming the Democrats for every problem. Now they can no longer avoid the blame for their irresponsibility.