# Bush's new speech - Wow! AKA "If I say it, it must be true" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 14, 2005, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604 "2005-12-14T17:28:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2005, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604/41 "2005-12-14T22:32:21Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > **ElvisL1ves** , I’m not certain what you may be implying about [your perception of] **UncleBeer** ’s positions at this time, but according to [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6777625&postcount=32), he’s not a Bush Defender, and according to [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6882012&postcount=22), he’s not a supporter of the Iraq war. > > Admittedly, both are relatively recent samplings of his politics. As such, they do not in and of themselves render the “born-again virgin” crack inaccurate, but, as has been pointed out in the past, if we don’t make an effort to get along with the folks manning the barricades with us, our efforts and resources are not going to be used to their most effective potential. It ain’t new. Try these on for size: [March 4, 2004](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4607377&postcount=43) “I, too, believe the US had no business initiating the war with Iraq . . .” [September 26, 2002] “You can sum this up in any way you want. My calculus leads to the inevitable conclusion that Saddam intends harm to the United States. And in the interests of self-preservation, he’s gotta go, but, as I said, I’m not sure I support Bush’s methods (that being a military invasion of Iraq. In fact, I think, given the larger picture, it would likely be a mistake) . . .” [url=“[http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=2992812&postcount=51](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=2992812&postcount=51)”]February 14, 2003]([http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=2468663&postcount=36](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=2468663&postcount=36)) “Mind you, I’m saying nothing about whether the little expedition George is planning here is the right thing to do. I don’t think it is; I agree that Saddam doesn’t seem to pose a credible threat to the Unites States. There are other nations to which he does pose a very real threat, but the decision must be made whether the U.S. wishes to sacrifice troops to preempt that threat. But the U.S.? It is to laugh.” Notable from that last quote, is a change of opinion. In 2002 when a lot more of us thought the adminstration was giving us good evidence that Iraq was amassing WMD, I believed Saddam presented a clear and present danger to the United States. As more information came out about Bush’s “evidence,” my opinion was revised to reflect the reality. In any case, even in 2002, when the common opinion was that Iraq ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2005, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604/42 "2005-12-14T22:42:21Z")
Fuck. Append the following to end of that post above: . . . had WMD, I didn’t think a military invasion was justifiable or prudent. Now Elvis doesn’t seem to have participated in any of those threads, but one _must_ assume he’s got cause for pasting the label on me he did so immediately and vituperatively. But he can’t produce it. Cause it ain’t true. I’ve never spoken a single word in favor of Bush’s “damn fool war.” And I’m pretty sure Elvis damned well knows it. There’s a rather unflattering word for persons who post such patently inflammatory material in order to get a rise of an individual. The word is “jerkoff asshole who lies through his stinking goddamn teeth fucking piss stain.” ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604/43 "2005-12-15T01:28:42Z")
> [@Banquet Bear](#): > > …who gives a shit what Bush said in his State of the Union Address? The United States came to the United Nations and laid down a clear-cut case for war: it detailed: > > - Hiding equipment > - Thwarting inspections > - Access to scientists > - Biological weapons > - Chemical weapons > - Nuclear weapons > - Prohibited arms systems > - Ties to al Qaeda > [http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.transcript/](http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.transcript/) > > This, despite your lovely attempt to rewrite history, was the United States Case for War that was presented to the International Community. Sound bites for domestic consumption means bollocks to me, and it means bollocks to most everybody else. If you’d like to point out which part of Powell’s presentation **weren’t** either lies, faulty intelligence that was pointed out to the Bush administration before the release of the report, or strawman, and if you could point out how 7/8ths of a report devoted to WMD’s is **not** all about WMD’s, I would be glad to read it. Seriously, - Hiding equipment such as WMD and such as equipment for making WMD. - Thwarting inspections by WMD inspector Blix, who himself said there were no WMD. - Access to scientists who were supposedly working on WMD. - Biological weapons - Chemical weapons - Nuclear weapons - Prohibited arms systems The above ARE WMD. - Ties to al Qaeda - of which there was NONE. Powells speech, which you cited: \*This is important day for us all as we review the situation with respect to Iraq and its **disarmament** obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441. Last November 8, this council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous vote. The purpose of that resolution was to **disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction**. Iraq had already been found guilty of material breach of its obligations, stretching back over 16 previous resolutions and 12 years. \* Comment - Iraq did not have any WMD capability. There were no WMD, no yellow cake (forged document, bub). Bush did not like “waiting” on the U.N. so he sold his (as he presented it) “get tough message” to Congress. Then he used that as an authorization for immediate attack. So, you’d better give a shit what Bush said stateside. \*On January 29, 2002 Bush gave his State of the Union speech. In it he introduced the “axis of evil” theme and made the following statement about Iraq: “Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror.” Later in the same speech he said: “ **I will not wait on events** , while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons.” \* One of his many claims of an Al Queda connection, which he still makes. Will not wait on events? What events? Iraq was not able to attack anyone, let alone the US. Better he should have said “I will not wait on FACTS”. The memo from Jack Straw to Tony Blair was dated March 25, 2002 and included the following comments: _“The rewards from your visit to Crawford will be few. The risks are high, both for you and for the Government. I judge that there is at present no majority inside the PLP for any military action against Iraq, (alongside a greater readiness in the PLP to surface their concerns). Colleagues know that Saddam and the Iraqi regime are bad. Making that case is easy. But **we have a long way to go to convince them** as to: (a) the **scale of the threat** from Iraq and why this has got worse recently; (b) what distinguishes the Iraqi threat from that of eg Iran and North Korea so as **to justify military action** ; © the justification for any military action in terms of international law;…”_ In short, we have to mislead them all and fire them up. We also have to pretend it is legal. Attack was lready decided, now they had to invent a reason. With respect to the legal justification, the memo said this: _“ **regime change per se is no justification** for military action; it could form part of the method of any strategy, but not the goal. Of course, we may **want credibly to assert that regime change is an essential part of the strategy by which we have to achieve our ends - that of the elimination of Iraq’s WMD capacity** ; but the latter has to be the goal; …”_ We want to attack so just keep harping on WMD, to get the people fired up. A briefing paper prepared by the Cabinet Office on July 21, 2002, in preparation for that meeting included the following comments: \*"The U.S. Government’s military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace. But, as yet, **it lacks a political framework**. In particular, **little thought has been given to creating the political conditions for military action, or the aftermath** and how to shape it. \* In his address to the United Nations General Assembly Bush said: _“Saddam Hussein’s regime is a **grave and gathering danger**. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime’s good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.”_ Evidence he created by selective reading (to be charitable) \*“On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. … In defiance of pledges to the U.N., it has **stockpiled biological and chemical weapons**. It is **rebuilding the facilities** used to make those weapons. U.N. inspectors believe that Iraq could have produce enough biological and chemical agent to kill millions of people. The regime has the scientists and facilities to build nuclear weapons, and is seeking the materials needed to do so.” \* Flat out lie - refer to Hans Blix, the UN inspector. Refer to the CIA Duelfer report. Refer to Joe WIlson. Bush lied in his teeth. In all of his speeches during this time, Bush was **careful to assure the nation that he sought the resolutions as a means of pressuring Iraq to disarm, and that war was not inevitable**. In the October 5 radio address, which he finished by urging all Americans to call their members of Congress regarding the resolution authorizing the use of force, he said this: \*“The United States **does not desire military conflict, because we know the awful nature of war. Our country values life, and we will never seek war** unless it is essential to security and justice. We hope that Iraq complies with the world’s demands. If, however, the Iraqi regime persists in its defiance, the use of force may become unavoidable.” \* So, we all know what happened then, and what has happened since then. Bush turned it around into a blanket approval for whatever he wanted to do, and since then has been claiming that he had congressional backing. So Banquet Bear, shove it up your ass. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604/44 "2005-12-15T01:33:34Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > It ain’t new. Try these on for size: > Notable from that last quote, is a change of opinion. In 2002 when a lot more of us thought the adminstration was giving us good evidence that Iraq was amassing WMD, I believed Saddam presented a clear and present danger to the United States. As more information came out about Bush’s “evidence,” my opinion was revised to reflect the reality. In any case, even in 2002, when the common opinion was that Iraq Notable too is a LOT of people changed their minds since then, those who know how to read and don’t get all their news from Fox, NewsMax, or Free Republic. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604/45 "2005-12-15T01:36:13Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > So Banquet Bear, shove it up your ass. Uh, **Banquet Bear** ’s on your side, dude. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604/46 "2005-12-15T01:42:55Z")
Howard Dean (definitely not neutral, but speaking the truth): On the White House Leak Case: "This is not so much about Scooter Libby and Karl Rove. This is about the fact that the President **didn’t tell us the truth** when we went to Iraq, and all these guys involved in it, it’s a huge cover-up. That’s what they’re in trouble for. The deed that led to it is an attack on the President’s dishonesty over the Iraq question. This is all – came to pass because of Joseph Wilson… "…The evidence is clear. **Half the stuff the president told us about Iraq–weapons of mass destruction, the trip to Niger, the purchase of uranium–we know its not true. It was in the 9/11 report. The 9/11 report–co-chaired by a Republican, Tom Kean of New Jersey–said there was no evidence of a terror connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden and that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. The President has been pushing that line nonetheless ever since**. We know the President wasn’t truthful with us when he sent us to Iraq. “The problem–what got Rove and Libby in trouble was because they were attacking–which the Republicans always do–attacking somebody who criticized them and disagreed with them… That is what they are investigating. A fundamental flaw in the Bush Administration is that they make personal attacks on people for meritorious arguments.” ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604/47 "2005-12-15T01:49:08Z")
From the Washington Post, Sunday, May 11, 2003; Page A01 Frustrated, U.S. Arms Team to Leave Iraq Task Force Unable To Find Any Weapons BAGHDAD – The group directing all known U.S. search efforts for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is winding down operations without finding proof that President Saddam Hussein kept clandestine stocks of outlawed arms, according to participants. … Army Col. Richard McPhee, who will close down the task force next month, said he took seriously U.S. intelligence warnings on the eve of war that Hussein had given “release authority” to subordinates in command of chemical weapons. “We didn’t have all these people in [protective] suits” for nothing, he said. But if Iraq thought of using such weapons, “there had to have been something to use. And we haven’t found it. . . . Books will be written on that in the intelligence community for a long time.” ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604/48 "2005-12-15T01:53:41Z")
From the Washington Post, 16 June 2004 Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no “collaborative relationship” between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration’s main justifications for the war in Iraq. Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein’s government and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was “overwhelming.” … The finding challenges a belief held by large numbers of Americans about al Qaeda’s ties to Hussein. … As recently as Monday, Cheney said in a speech that Hussein “had long-established ties with al Qaeda.” ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604/49 "2005-12-15T01:58:30Z")
From the LA Times, 3 December 2005 FBI Is Taking Another Look at Forged Prewar Intelligence The FBI has reopened an inquiry into one of the most intriguing aspects of the pre-Iraq war intelligence fiasco: how the Bush administration came to rely on forged documents linking Iraq to nuclear weapons materials as part of its justification for the invasion. The documents inspired intense U.S. interest in the buildup to the war — and they led the CIA to send a former ambassador to the African nation of Niger to investigate whether Iraq had sought the materials there. The ambassador, Joseph C. Wilson IV, found little evidence to support such a claim, and the documents were later deemed to have been forged. … The FBI’s decision to reopen the investigation reverses the agency’s announcement last month that it had finished a two-year inquiry and concluded that the forgeries were part of a moneymaking scheme — and not an effort to manipulate U.S. foreign policy. … The claim that Iraq had obtained or was seeking uranium in Niger was a central part of the administration’s case for war. It was mentioned explicitly in late 2002 by British Prime Minister Tony Blair and in January 2003 by Bush to illustrate the threat posed by Iraq’s then-president, Saddam Hussein. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604/50 "2005-12-15T02:00:27Z")
> [@Neurotik](#): > > Uh, **Banquet Bear** ’s on your side, dude. Really? I didn’t get that from how I saw the post. If so, I apologize BIG TIME. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604/51 "2005-12-15T02:02:57Z")
From what I remember, Bush sent Powell to the U.N. and Bush went to the U.N. Then he told the U.N. to pretty much go to hell. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604/52 "2005-12-15T02:04:21Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Really? I didn’t get that from how I saw the post. If so, I apologize BIG TIME. Yeah, he is. Which makes your post really funny. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604/53 "2005-12-15T02:17:56Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > Yeah, he is. Which makes your post really funny. My fault. I saw the phrase “rewriting history” and also saw my name in the mix, so I thought he was calling me out. I retract my insult to **BanquetBear** , with my deepest apologies. However, Twin can suck it. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604/54 "2005-12-15T03:03:50Z")
> [@astro](#): > > For a speech that acknowledges the intelligence that led him (and us by extension) to war was royally screwed up, and given what we know now, the number of flat pronouncements of abject nonsense that we are expected to gobble up is … is… I just don’t know. As a conservative I’m ashamed this man is my President. It’s stunning. > > Regardless of how Iraq turns out, defending the loss of 2000+ young American lives and countless Iraqi lives on the premise that Saddam constituted an imminent threat is the US is a lie so clumsy, vile and transparent it’s stomach turning. Then to claim that we are justified in instituting democracy in Iraq by military force because well… “better safe than sorry” & “It’s good for them” is hubris on a scale that beggars the imagination. > > [Bush acknowledges faulty Iraq intelligence - In speech, says war was still justified to oust Saddam, create democracy](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10461235/) All of GW’s speeches talk glowingly about how wonderful it will be to have a democratic, happy and prosperous Iraq as a vital ally in the Middle East. None of them even comes close to, or attempts to give even a hint of a method (a plan if you will) for getting from the present, chaotic condition, to that rosy future. What looks more likely is an Iraq, if you can call it that, consisting of a semi-autonomous Shiite south having a majority in the “national” government and closely tied to Iran. A semi-autonomous Kurdish region in the north possibly causing unrest in Turkey’s Kurds and deviling the government there, and a pissed off Sunni middle with few resources and little political say in the “national” government. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604/55 "2005-12-15T03:50:44Z")
Re-read the speech, and note how he “accepts” responsiblilty. The real meassage is… As your president it is my job to accept responsiblility (but 'oly because I’m the preznit), but it was the fault of all those intelligence guys (never mind that I twisted the reports), and other country’s intelligence guys believed the same thing (that I told them). And I’m gonna fix it (by finding some else to pin it on). Even in pretending to “accept” responsibility, he is not. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604/56 "2005-12-15T03:57:48Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Really? I didn’t get that from how I saw the post. If so, I apologize BIG TIME. Banquet Bear was responding to your citation (below) of the SOTU address as if you were proposing that it contained the definitive list of rationales of the invasion (which was probably not your intent) and made the (fairly valid point IMO) that the SOTU address was kind of beside the point in terms of the specific reasons offered to the world at large, which were more extensively detailed in the UN documents, and that none of these reasons proved out as initally represented. > [@](#): > > Quote: > Originally Posted by Twin > That was a reason. It was not the only one. In Bush’s State of the Union Address, he also points out that Iraq was part of an axis of evil and supported terror. These were also reasons why we went to war. > > SteveG1, if it makes you feel better, you can callme whatever you want . ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604/57 "2005-12-15T04:02:36Z")
> [@astro](#): > > Banquet Bear was responding to your citation (below) of the SOTU address as if you were proposing that it contained the definitive list of rationales of the invasion (which was probably not your intent) and made the (fairly valid point IMO) that the SOTU address was kind of beside the point in terms of the specific reasons offered to the world at large, which were more extensively detailed in the UN documents, and that none of these reasons proved out as initally represented. > > . Now I’m really getting confused. I’m going to take the easy way out, and say Bush was deliberately misleading everyone from the very start, no matter what speech is mentioned. All the speeches contained the same crap anyway, In fact his latest “I’m almost sorry but it ain’t my fault” speech is still hanging on the old war on terror crap. In short, fuck Bush no matter what he says from now on. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604/58 "2005-12-15T07:24:01Z")
> [@Twin](#): > > There isn’t anything to defend. Bush is exactly right. > > As the president said, we **ARE** in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of a brutal dictator. The decision to remove Saddam Hussein **WAS** the right decision. Saddam **WAS** a threat and the American people and the world **ARE** better off because he is no longer in power. > > Statements that we only went to war because of WMDs and that there were no other reasons is revisionist history. Saddam was not longer a threat to the US. I think that GW doesn’t really have a good hold on reality. Like Rep. Murta it is my view that the US maintains a military force for its own defense and not for the defense of the Iraqis against their domestic tyrant. And we the people certainly didn’t buy into maintaining a large military to bring democracy to Iraq. Had any president proposed spending billions on military forces for such reasons he, or she, would have been laughed out of office. The after-the-fact rationalizations and the ease with which they are picked up and parroted by so many make me fear for the future of the American experiment in self-government. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 10:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604/59 "2005-12-15T10:14:09Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > My fault. I saw the phrase “rewriting history” and also saw my name in the mix, so I thought he was calling me out. I retract my insult to **BanquetBear** , with my deepest apologies. However, Twin can suck it. …as pointed out by others (thanks for the support!) I was pointing out to **Twin** that the SOTU address was simply sound bytes for domestic consumption: so even if he said during the SOTU that the war was because " Iraq was part of an axis of evil and supported terror", that wasn’t the case for war bought before the international community. The case was laid out, as you know, by Powell in 2003, and, by chapter heading alone, was 7/8th’s Weapons of Mass Destruction and 1/8th’s ties with Al Queda. Bringing freedom to the Iraqi people was summed up in a couple of paragraphs at the end of the presentation-and no supporting documentation was provided for it. Just to help keep painting the picture for you: months prior to the US invasion the world was pretty much on tenterhooks waiting to find out what evidence the US had to justify an invasion. Colin Powell has a great amount of **mana** in these parts, and I was expecting a good presentation with solid evidence. What we got, as you are well aware, was a load of horseshit. I started banging walls with my hand when we got to this [bit:](http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.transcript.02/index.html) > [@](#): > > [Following is a U.S. translation of that taped conversation.] > > GEN: Yeah. > > COL: About this committee that is coming… > > GEN: Yeah, yeah. > > COL: …with Mohamed ElBaradei [Director, International Atomic Energy Agency] > > GEN: Yeah, yeah. > > COL: Yeah. > > GEN: Yeah? > > COL: We have this modified vehicle. > > GEN: Yeah. > > COL: What do we say if one of them sees it? > > GEN: You didn’t get a modified… You don’t have a modified… > > COL: By God, I have one. > > GEN: Which? From the workshop…? > > COL: From the al-Kindi Company > > GEN: What? > > COL: From al-Kindi. > > GEN: Yeah, yeah. I’ll come to you in the morning. I have some comments. I’m worried you all have something left. > > COL: We evacuated everything. We don’t have anything left. > > GEN: I will come to you tomorrow. > > COL: Okay. > > GEN: I have a conference at Headquarters, before I attend the conference I will come to you. …and when Powell said this: > [@](#): > > “The al-Kindi Company: This is a company that is well known to have been involved in prohibited weapons systems activity.” …I started swearing at the TV set. I knew at this point the US had nothing. I listened to the rest of Powells presentation and turned the TV off in disgust. Nada. Bush had said they knew where the weapons were, but Powells presentation showed that he didn’t. Cheney had said that Iraq was reconstituting their nuclear weapons programme, but Powell’s presentation didn’t show that. After months of radio intercepts the best they could present to the international community was some mention of moving stuff around, and the mentioningg of the al-Kindi Company. And the US press lapped it up like good doggies, and the US marched to war. Powell’s presentation was debunked faster on this message board than the mainstream press: I heard “Curveball’s” name come up on the news a few months ago as if it was breaking news: I first read about him here on this message board weeks after the Powell presentation. So to sum up, if you think your angry about the Iraq War, you don’t have a patch on me. I’m _livid._ In case you still doubt my position on Iraq-I’ll link to a couple of my posts on the matter: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6804744&postcount=152](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6804744&postcount=152) [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6859254&postcount=88](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6859254&postcount=88) [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6709255&postcount=79](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6709255&postcount=79) Having said that, it was fun getting flamed. 😃 As **Giraffe** said, your post was funny! ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604/60 "2005-12-15T13:09:41Z")
> [@](#): > > “We are in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of brutal dictator,” Bush said. “It is to leave a free and democratic Iraq in his place. " Didn’t this guy run with a first term platform of “no nation building?” Wasn’t he - and the GOP - very concerned over Clinton feeling the need to leave freedom and democracy in Bosnia and Somolia? Could it be that Bush is a … flip flopper? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604.md?page=4)