Bush Responds in Tennessee: Hogwash or Bullpucky?

[elucidator]

GeeDubya gave a speech at Oak Ridge. In other circumstances, it might well be considered a pretty minor speech. But this is the first glimpse we’ve gotten as to how the Bushiviks intend to respond to the Senate Intelligence report. The answer, it would seem, is mendacity and insinuation on a Nixonian scale.

(The full text is available here…http://www.georgewbush.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=2936… just in case you think I’m making this shit up….)

We were questioning as to whether GeeDubya would try to dump the whole mess off on George Tenet (the Clinton appointee…), singing the blues about how he done been bamboozled and cozened by that dastardly Clinton appointee.

Nope, he’s decided to brazen it out!

… The Senate Intelligence Committee has identified some shortcomings in our intelligence capabilities; the Committee’s report will help us in the work of reform….

I gasp in astonishment. The have “identified some shortcomings”. Is there some theoretical limit to understatement, some neutron density? Did he read the same report I did? World War II was noisy. The Black Death was kind of a drag. “Shortcomings” were “identified”.

Now, this little tidbit is stuck in a more general line of blather. Refering to A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani scientist who was running a nuclear Amway sale….

…Three years ago, a private weapons proliferation network was doing business around the world. This network, operated by the Pakistani nuclear scientist, A. Q. Khan, was selling nuclear plans and equipment to the highest bidder, and found willing buyers in places like Libya, Iran, and North Korea. Today, the A. Q. Khan network is out of business….

Quite true, as far as it goes. Three years ago, this was so. It remained so until February of this year. Only two real possibilities: one, we didn’t know squat about it, even as it went on for three years, or we knew and did nothing. Neither can be said to be heartening. And when found out, our dearest good buddy Musharaff, leader of one of the most democratic military dictatorships ever, pardoned the miscreant the very next day! But its true, three years ago, he was selling the stuff, today, he is not.

So far as we know. We are assured that he is “out of business”? By whom are we assured? By the same CIA that didn’t know for three long years? Or did Gen. Musharaff cross his heart, no Kings-X allowed? Gosh, I sure hope that isn’t another “shortcoming”! That could be a bad thing.

… President Musharraf is a friend of our country…

With friends like this, who needs enemies?

… Today, because we’re working with the Pakistani leaders, Pakistan is an ally in the war on terror, and the American people are safer. (Applause.)…

Brood on that for a moment. Our ally and boon companion, Pakistan, was selling the real “weapons of mass destruction” to our “sworn enemies”. Iraq didn’t even have these weapons to sell, and we invaded them to prevent them from giving what they didn’t have. In which alternative universe does this make any sense at all?

… Three years ago, the ruler of Iraq was a sworn enemy of America…So I had a choice to make: Either take the word of a madman, or defend America. Given that choice, I will defend America every time….

Stirring words. But it does raise the question, does it not? If Iraq posed such a desperate threat, if Saddam bin Laden seethed with hatred and madness, then why hadn’t he already attacked? What was the madman waiting for? And if he was restrained by the weakness of his military force and the certainty of destruction, then he isn’t quite the madman, now is he?

Is he offering the premise that Saddam boiled with rage for more than ten years, enduring sanctions and humiliations too numerous to mention, waiting for his dog to tell him to attack? Did Saddam hate America? Probably. Why didn’t he attack America? Two real good reasons leap to mind.

First, of course, he couldn’t, not even with his nuclear anthrax VX intercontinental drones of Doom. (Duct tape shortage….) And second, of course, we would have turned Baghdad into a level plain of green glass in the middle of the Godforsaken Desert.

But he’s a madman, mustn’t delay, mustn’t hesitate. Can’t wait for allies, can’t wait for proof, can’t wait for inspections. Can wait for ten years, but not one minute longer.

… We removed a declared enemy of America, who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder, and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them. In the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take….

Ah! The capability of production, which could be passed on to bent terrorists. Did he have a Ronco Pre-Fab Pocket Weapons Lab to hand over to ObL? Was he going to scrape the rust off one of those Mobile Weapons Labs of Doom, dismantle it and ship it to……where? Well, somewhere.

But the more important point is this: the “capability” to produce chemical and biological weapons is virtually universal, Gabon can do it, Upper Volta can do it, Belgium can do it. Iran can do it. Pakistan did do it, and went nuclear with it! Mustard gas, hell! Nukes! What “capability” did Iraq possess that could be shared with AlQ, and in what respect was this unique to Iraq? Does Iran hate our guts any less? N Korea? Sudan? Syria?

If AlQ wants such weapons, you can bet your ass they’ve already got them! Why should we feel any safer merely because the can’t get them from Iraq, when they have almost the entire world to choose from?

… Today, because the Libyan government saw the seriousness of the civilized world, and correctly judged its own interests, the American people are safer….

By golly, there’s a glimmer of truth there! Indeed, the world is a better place now that Qaddaffy Duck has come around! Was he a madman? Certainly by the standards applied recently: thumbing his nose at sanctions, fostering terrorist acts against Americans, carrying out terrorist acts, pursuing WMD, and writing really, really bad novels. Just like Saddam, except for the fact that Saddam wasn’t, and he was. Qaddaffy - genuine and verifiable acts of terrorism, and pursuit of “WMD”. Saddam - vague and unproven “contacts”, smoke and mirrors. Qaddaffy – sanctions and diplomacy. Saddam – war and invasion.

Why? Does this make the slightest sense?

There are tons more blather in the speech, we would need a tag team to render justice, so I’ll just confine myself. If anyone else wishes to highlight another nugget of bullshit, please feel free to join in. Conversely, if anyone thinks that this makes some plausible sense that has escaped my deranged lefty sensibilities, “bring it on”.

[Fear_Itself]

"Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq. We removed a declared enemy of America, who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder, and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them. "

By this definition, the only difference between Iraq and North Korea is that North Korea actually has nuclear weapons. If this is the justification for invasion and occupation, can we expect American troops to invade not only North Korea, but any one of a half dozen other countries that may or may not present a threat to the security of the US at some time in the future? If not, why is Iraq unique?

[GLWasteful]

Why oh why do you hate Amurrica? Won’t someone think of the children who will not be left behind?

[Squink]

The New American Century is OVER. Bush killed it.

[New_Iskander]

@Fear Itself

…why is Iraq unique?

Because Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991.

[erislover]

To overcome the dangers of our time, America is also taking a new approach in the world. We’re determined to challenge new threats, not ignore them, or simply wait for future tragedy. We’re helping to build a hopeful future in hopeless places, instead of allowing troubled regions to remain in despair and explode in violence. Our goal is a lasting, democratic peace, in which free nations are free from the threat of sudden terror. Our strategy for peace has three commitments: First, we are defending the peace by taking the fight to the enemy. We will confront them overseas so we do not have to confront them here at home. (Applause.) We are destroying the leadership of terrorist networks in sudden raids, disrupting their planning and financing, and keeping them on the run. Month by month, we are shrinking the space in which they can freely operate, by denying them territory and the support of governments.

I can’t even begin to believe someone wrote this paragraph with a single honest intent in their body. The threat of sudden terror? Like your country getting on America’s bad side? I like the way the plan for peace involves war everywhere else. What kind of Orwellian definition of peace is that?

[Darwin_s_Finch]

@New Iskander

Because Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991.

You are correct that Iraq is unique in that no one else invaded Kuwait in 1991.

However, Iraq’s behavior up till then was not unique, in that Iraq also invaded Iran in 1980 – only we encouraged that invasion. So why the hubbub over Iraq’s aggression against one neighbor but not the other? How was Iraq more dangerous on account of its invasion of Kuwait than it was when it invaded Iran?

[Ms2001]

@New Iskander

Because Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991.

Well, North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950, and they’ve built tunnels going through to the south - the latest one was discovered in 1990 and was big enough for a Jeep. What’s the statute of limitations on such things?

[Atticus_Finch]

@New Iskander

Because Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991.

And Iran in 1980. So what?

If you’re trying to say that invasions make Iraq unique, think again. Even amongst the “Axis of Evil” nations or “rogue states”. North Korea has a long history of fighting with South Korea and would certainly invade if it thought it could succeed. Syria is controlling Lebanon like a ventriloquist’s dummy.

[erislover]

@Mr2001

Well, North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950, and they’ve built tunnels going through to the south - the latest one was discovered in 1990 and was big enough for a Jeep. What’s the statute of limitations on such things?

North Korea actually has an army and actually has nukes. So they’re safe from invasion, forgiven for past mistakes, they’re the good good friends and we only want to get along.

[Zagadka]

@erislover

North Korea actually has an army and actually has nukes. So they’re safe from invasion, forgiven for past mistakes, they’re the good good friends and we only want to get along.

After reading through that thread on bullies, and then this thread, I just got the sudden and distinct impression that Mr. Bush is just a bully. He finds easy targets and pummels them until satisfied. He doesn’t really give a damn, as long as he is the biggest kid on the block - but he’d never test his ability to fight any kids who can stick up for themselves, because at heart, he is a coward, and afraid to his very core.

World makes a lot more sense, when you look at it that way.

[New_Iskander]

@Darwin's Finch

How was Iraq more dangerous on account of its invasion of Kuwait than it was when it invaded Iran?

Because we told them to back off and they wouldn’t, which lead to war and 12 year of militarily enforced sanctions with no resolution in sight.

[erislover]

I don’t recall that we told them to not invade Kuwait…

Zagadka, check.

[Aeschines]

OP is hilariously and aptly written. Bravo.

Eluc said it all. Bush sucks. November come early.

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@elucidator

What “capability” did Iraq possess that could be shared with AlQ, and in what respect was this unique to Iraq? Does Iran hate our guts any less? N Korea? Sudan? Syria?

@Mr 2001

Well, North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950, and they’ve built tunnels going through to the south - the latest one was discovered in 1990 and was big enough for a Jeep. What’s the statute of limitations on such things?

@Darwin's Finch

However, Iraq’s behavior up till then was not unique, in that Iraq also invaded Iran in 1980 – only we encouraged that invasion. So why the hubbub over Iraq’s aggression against one neighbor but not the other? How was Iraq more dangerous on account of its invasion of Kuwait than it was when it invaded Iran?

@lambchops

And Iran in 1980. So what?

If you’re trying to say that invasions make Iraq unique, think again. Even amongst the “Axis of Evil” nations or “rogue states”. North Korea has a long history of fighting with South Korea and would certainly invade if it thought it could succeed. Syria is controlling Lebanon like a ventriloquist’s dummy.

Looks like all you folks are reading from the same Democratic Underground thread. Or maybe Krugman’s latest column just came out.

Here’s the deal. We can actually have causus belli against more than one country at the same time. I’m surprised that you folks don’t kow that, given that we’ve been at war against multiple countries numerous times in our history. See e.g. World War I; World War II.

And here’s something else – just because we have one reason that we could want to go to war against one country doesn’t mean that we are required to go to war against that country. Maybe . . . just maybe, we should determine the best course of action by looking at more than one factor.

And finally, you’re looking at this one factor – aggression against our allies in the region – and ignoring all the other factors. To me, the single biggest difference between North Korea and Iraq is China. If we invaded North Korea, China would likely get involved in the war on the side of Korea . . . just like they did the first time we invaded northern Korea in the Korean War/Conflict/Whatever you want to call it.

On the other hand, Saddam had no such powerful allies, which made toppling him a practical way to deal with a nasty problem.

Invading Iraq but not North Korea and Syria and Libya and Pakistan, etc., is only inconsistent if you blindly focus on one factor, and imagine that everything else is the same by ignoring the millions of differences between each situation. This point is so obvious that it boggles the mind that people could miss this. More likely they’re just ignoring it.

@elucidator

Was he a madman? Certainly by the standards applied recently: thumbing his nose at sanctions, fostering terrorist acts against Americans, carrying out terrorist acts, pursuing WMD, and writing really, really bad novels. Just like Saddam, except for the fact that Saddam wasn’t, and he was.

Saddam was not a madman? Wow. I go away for a short time and find the wheels of sanity have come flying off one of my favorite posters. Or has this board gone so far left that this is the only way you can get debates going around here?

[Squink]

@Age Quod Agis

And here’s something else – just because we have one reason that we could want to go to war against one country doesn’t mean that we are required to go to war against that country.

Surely you meant to make an exception for Iraq? I find the thought that we may have been bamboozled into allocating up to $600 billion US taxpayer dollars over the next ten years for an optional war a trifle disturbing.

[E72521]

To overcome the dangers of our time, America is also taking a new approach in the world. We’re determined to challenge new threats, not ignore them, or simply wait for future tragedy.

Unless, of course, your name is North Korea or Saudi Arabia. You guys might actually be hard to blow up and occupy.

Second, we’re protecting the peace by working with friends and allies and international institutions to isolate and confront terrorists and outlaw regimes.

We’ll cut the good ol’ boy some slack on this one. The Phillipines didn’t announce their pullout of Iraq until after the speech.

We have followed this strategy – defending the peace, protecting the peace and extending the peace – for nearly three years.

Bush/Cheney '04–Four More Wars

Today, because Saudi Arabia has seen the danger and has joined the war on terror, the American people are safer.

At least the guy knows who his real friends are.

And so my administration looked at the intelligence on Iraq, and we saw a threat. Members of the United States Congress from both political parties looked at the same intelligence, and they saw a threat. The United Nations Security Council looked at the intelligence, and it saw a threat. The previous administration and the Congress looked at the intelligence and made regime change in Iraq the policy of our country.

Congress made the mistake of trusting your intelligence, The UN and our former allies called bullshit, and the previous administration and Congress decided, like your father, that occupation wasn’t such a hot idea.

@Age Quod Agis

To me, the single biggest difference between North Korea and Iraq is China. If we invaded North Korea, China would likely get involved in the war on the side of Korea . . . just like they did the first time we invaded northern Korea in the Korean War/Conflict/Whatever you want to call it.

China wouldn’t have time to get involved before South Korea and Japan were dust. Since when does your Great Leader care about world opinion? To me, Duhbya stays out of NK because he’s a pussy. Thank God.

[Reeder]

To overcome the dangers of our time, America is also taking a new approach in the world. We’re determined to challenge new threats, not ignore them, or simply wait for future tragedy. We’re helping to build a hopeful future in hopeless places, instead of allowing troubled regions to remain in despair and explode in violence. Our goal is a lasting, democratic peace, in which free nations are free from the threat of sudden terror. Our strategy for peace has three commitments: First, we are defending the peace by taking the fight to the enemy. We will confront them overseas so we do not have to confront them here at home. (Applause.) We are destroying the leadership of terrorist networks in sudden raids, disrupting their planning and financing, and keeping them on the run. Month by month, we are shrinking the space in which they can freely operate, by denying them territory and the support of governments.

So I can assume we will invade the Darfor region next week. Zimbabwe the week after. Right?

[erislover]

@Age Quod Agis

This point is so obvious that it boggles the mind that people could miss this.

I say the same thing every day.

[Apos]

@New Iskander

Because Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991.

Something that sort of amuses me: can almost anyone in America answer the simple question: “WHY did Iraq invade Kuwait?” I mean, for such a big deal, you would think that people would be better informed as to why that happened. But I’ve yet to meet a single person outside a super-policy wonk who remembers or even knew in the first place what the relevant issues were.