# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604/61 "2005-12-15T13:40:38Z")
There are over 2,000 Americans who are decidedly NOT better off with Saddam removed. And by Bush’s reckoning, at least 30,000 Iraqis. Every single one of these 32,000+ souls was the most important person in the world to somebody. The dead and their families are very much worse off than they were before Bush’s misadventure. And for what? So that Iraq will become a democracy, hardly a given outcome? Whenever the Americans leave, a new band of thugs will take over and the common Iraqi will be no better off. Worse, before the invasion there was little if any connection between Iraq and terrorism. Now that chaos has gripped the country, the terrorists have poured in. Instead of stopping a fire, Bush has poured kerosene on the fire. Yet for all of this, he is still incapable of believing that he could ever make a mistake. Worse, there are millions of half wits around the country that still believe in him. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604/62 "2005-12-15T14:40:01Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > 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. What was that you said about me? That you didn’t think I could read? And immediately after that, you demonstrate quite conclusively that you have completely misunderstood what someone wrote? There’s a piece of particularly rich irony. How’s that foot of yours taste? And what other statement did you make about myself? Oh yeah, that I “get all [my] news from Fox, NewsMax, or Free Republic.” You, like Elvis must have some concrete basis, or even just a logically supportable inference, for making such a claim. How 'bout you show us the foundation on which it’s built? A quotation from me actually using one of those sources as a citation would go a long way. In asking for only one, I’m actually letting you off easy. After all you said I got **all my news** from those three sources. If that were _really_ true, then **all** my citations here should be from one of those three sources. So, it oughtta be easy for you find just one. I’ll wait right here while you go dig up one of those - a quotation from me citing one of those three sources as support for my opinion. Ya know what really fucking pisses me off though? That guys like you and Elvis think that because I don’t agree with your view of events in all cases that **must and necessarily** mean that I’m a right-wing parrot of the Republican Party line and staunch Bush advocate. When I complain that’s not true (as I often do; and in actual fucking fact, I’ve probably refuted your misfounded assertion more times than I’ve made statements which are supportive of Bush’s initiatives), it is exactly akin to the complaints of the Left being labeled “unpatriotic, un-American & treasonous” simply because they oppose the initiatives of Bush and the reactionary Right. I know why you guys get mad about that kind of thing; it’s inflammatory, it’s an intellectual shortcut, it’s demonizing, and most of all it’s just simply untrue. But over and over and over again, I find you guys doing the same goddamned thing - and not just to me, but to any number of the conservatives around here. It’s yet another piece of spectacular irony. ---
**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, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604/63 "2005-12-15T17:00:21Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > What was that you said about me? That you didn’t think I could read? And immediately after that, you demonstrate quite conclusively that you have completely misunderstood what someone wrote? … > And what other statement did you make about myself? Oh yeah, that I “get all [my] news from Fox, NewsMax, or Free Republic.” … > it is exactly akin to the complaints of the Left being labeled “unpatriotic, un-American & treasonous” simply because they oppose the initiatives of Bush and the reactionary Right. I know why you guys get mad about that kind of thing; it’s inflammatory, it’s an intellectual shortcut, it’s demonizing, and most of all it’s just simply untrue. But over and over and over again, I find you guys doing the same goddamned thing - and not just to me, but to any number of the conservatives around here. It’s yet another piece of spectacular irony. First Subject: I see how this is playing out. Any reactionary flag waver can be mistaken, wrong, or just full of shit. But, if I get confused while opening multiple windows, at least trying to get a few facts straight, the whole world is gonna end. I was directing this to Twin, not you. Maybe I didn’t make that clear enough. I _think_ this was the first time I’ve made any comments about literacy, and know what? I can’t get myself too worked up over it. It’s been a long time annoyance to me, because sure as shit, any time there is a discussion/argument around here, sooner or later someone will toss in “traitor” or “get outta my country” or something, in damn near every thread. We’ve been putting up with it ever since “The Mandate”. Now, as per the other thread, there is the whole “White Flag” thing. We have chicken hawk politicians calling other politicians (and people in general) cowards for not falling in line. After (how many years?) the patience wears thin. Especially since, every cite in this and many other threads has to continually be dredged up again and again and again. **So, for the benefit of those (like Twin) who still insist on The Party Line, my remark about literacy and news sources stands as written.** Next Subject: I believe it was Twin who brought up the SOTU speech, not me. I was calling bullshit on what Twin’s words were, and I believe I did that, regardless of my error in attributing it to the wrong person. **Does anyone have any problems with the cites I referenced?** ---
**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, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604/64 "2005-12-15T17:25:40Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > 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? [http://www.thebostonchannel.com/helenthomas/2117601/detail.html](http://www.thebostonchannel.com/helenthomas/2117601/detail.html) Once Opposed, Bush Begins Nation Building President Once Said He Wouldn’t Follow Clinton’s Example In Balkans As a candidate for the presidency in 2000, George W. Bush insisted that, if elected, he would not allow U.S. military forces to engage in “nation building.” No way would he follow President Bill Clinton’s foray into nation building in the Balkans, Bush declared. Famous last words. [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/03/02/once\_against\_nation\_building\_bush\_now\_involved?mode=PF](http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/03/02/once_against_nation_building_bush_now_involved?mode=PF) Once against nation-building, Bush now involved The very words “nation building” were akin to an expletive when George W. Bush ran for the White House four years ago. But now, as he seeks a second term, United States intervention in Haiti is but the latest example of how nation-building has become a defining feature of his administration’s foreign policy. … During a debate with then-Vice President Al Gore on Oct. 11, 2000, in Winston-Salem, N.C., Bush said: **"I don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called nation-building**. . . . I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I’m missing something here. I mean, we’re going to have a kind of nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not." [http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnists/wickham/2001-10-15-wickham.htm](http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnists/wickham/2001-10-15-wickham.htm) Bush practicing ‘nation-building’ he reviled During the second of three presidential debates, Bush — who up to then had shown little real grasp of foreign policy issues — questioned the Clinton administration’s use of troops in what he called “nation-building” missions. He referred to Haiti and Somalia, impoverished and politically unstable countries where Clinton tried, with mixed results, to use U.S. troops to help restore order. … That was then. > **[Briefing Room | The White House](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/)** President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference We’ll help that nation to build a just government, after decades of brutal dictatorship. Flip flop Flip flop Flip flop Flip flop ---
**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, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604/65 "2005-12-15T17:34:44Z")
[http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6900616&postcount=44](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6900616&postcount=44) > [@The post that gives you hearburn](#): > > Originally Posted by 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 > > Reply from SteveG1 (me) > **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. Note, UncleBeer, that I was not attacking YOU to begin with. I was agreeing with you, that SOME people can and do change their minds. So while you slam me for my lack of “attention to detail”, go back to that post and read it again. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604/66 "2005-12-15T17:44:18Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > I was directing this to Twin, not you. Maybe I didn’t make that clear enough. Directing _what_ to Twin. Since you quoted me, it seemed pretty evident you were directing your comments to me. The only thing I’ve really remarked on is that single sentence post of yours. See: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6900616&postcount=44](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6900616&postcount=44) ---
**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, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604/67 "2005-12-15T17:47:10Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > Directing _what_ to Twin. Since you quoted me, it seemed pretty evident you were directing your comments to me. The only thing I’ve really remarked on is that single sentence post of yours. See: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6900616&postcount=44](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6900616&postcount=44) Read the thing AGAIN. You stated that you had changed your mind. I was “seconding” that. I was agreeing with you damn it. ---
**Author:** ![Baldwin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baldwin/32/7264_2.png) [@Baldwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baldwin)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604/68 "2005-12-15T18:00:40Z")
I don’t think our President is kept awake at night by doubts. He had an interview with Brian Williams (NBC) recently, and in reference to invading Iraq said: > [@](#): > > Whether or not it needed to happen, I’m still convinced it needed to happen. Just chew on that for a while. Savor it. ---
**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, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604/69 "2005-12-15T18:02:16Z")
> [@Baldwin](#): > > I don’t think our President is kept awake at night by doubts. He had an interview with Brian Williams (NBC) recently, and in reference to invading Iraq said: > Just chew on that for a while. Savor it. Now that there is some irrefutable logic. Hmmmmmm. 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Baal\_Houtham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baal_houtham/32/13604_2.png) [@Baal\_Houtham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baal_Houtham)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604/70 "2005-12-15T18:23:54Z")
I used wanted to mention that the US has a population of 295 million, and that the best estimates I could find for the cost of the Iraq war are that it will reach $251 billion in April of 2006.\* That’s 850 bucks for every person in the country. So if my husband/wife/child middle class family is typical we’ve chipped in $2,500. Quite honestly, I didn’t want to do it. I knew that Cheney (and others) were cynically continuing to suggest an Al-Queda-Saddam connection long after the idea was throughly discredited. I knew that if another country invaded the US that there would be guerilla warfare for the indefinite future, and hence I didn’t expect the Iraqis to greet us with flowers. Anyway. I just wanted to say that my family would rather have the $2,500. We could use it for piano lessons, or math tutoring, a college fund or retirement investing. Or a big screen plasma TV. Almost anything other than no-bid contracts for Halliburton, 10,000 dead or maimed US soldiers, 30,000 dead Iraqis, a destabilized world, and US government sponsored torture. ~Baal~ - [here](http://costofwar.com/numbers.html) “The numbers include military operations, reconstruction and other spending related to the Iraq invasion and occupation. Spending only includes “incremental” costs, additional funds that are expended due to the war. For example, soldiers’ regular pay is not included, but combat pay is included. Potential future costs, such as future health care for soldiers and veterans wounded in the war, are not included. It is also not clear whether the current funding will cover all military wear and tear. It also does not account for the contribution of war spending to the deficits incurred in the federal budget. In other words, we have not included the cost of interest on the debt.” ---
**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, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604/71 "2005-12-15T20:10:51Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > Directing _what_ to Twin. Since you quoted me, it seemed pretty evident you were directing your comments to me. The only thing I’ve really remarked on is that single sentence post of yours. See: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6900616&postcount=44](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6900616&postcount=44) Will this clear it up?? Are you getting the context now? Originally Posted by The post that gives you hearburn Originally Posted by 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 Reply from SteveG1 (me) Notable too is a LOT of people (like yourself) changed their minds since then, those who know how to read (like yourself) and don’t get all their news from Fox, NewsMax, or Free Republic (like Twin). ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604/72 "2005-12-15T21:25:19Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Will this clear it up?? Immensely. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Frostillicus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Frostillicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frostillicus)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2005, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604/73 "2005-12-16T03:45:58Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > There are over 2,000 Americans who are decidedly NOT better off with Saddam removed. And by Bush’s reckoning, at least 30,000 Iraqis. Please don’t forget the 15,000+ Americans and countless Iraqis who have been horribly maimed and wounded as a result of President Bush’s decision to launch a pre-emptive war against a country that was absolutely no threat to us. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2005, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604/74 "2005-12-16T12:20:36Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > There are over 2,000 Americans who are decidedly NOT better off with Saddam removed. And by Bush’s reckoning, at least 30,000 Iraqis. Every single one of these 32,000+ souls was the most important person in the world to somebody. Of course the scary point, (even leaving aside humane considerations and looking at it completely selfishly) is what those somebodies are now going to do. They may not have hated the West before… > [@](#): > > Whenever the Americans leave, a new band of thugs will take over and the common Iraqi will be no better off. Personally I had hoped that the new regime might wait, ooh, maybe a week after the US left to start in on torture and mistreatment of citizens but I notice from recent news that they’ve [started already.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/11/AR2005121101002_pf.html) ---
**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 16, 2005, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604/75 "2005-12-16T12:40:11Z")
> [@Frostillicus](#): > > Please don’t forget the 15,000+ Americans and countless Iraqis who have been horribly maimed and wounded as a result of President Bush’s decision to launch a pre-emptive war against a country that was absolutely no threat to us. …and of course, EVERYBODY forgets about the Iraqi soldiers who wer either killed or wounded in the invasion. Pentagon estimates at least 30,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed during the invasion. Thats on top of the Bush’s civilian estimate of 30,000 dead. ---
**Author:** ![ArrMatey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/arrmatey/32/3522_2.png) [@ArrMatey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ArrMatey)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2005, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604/76 "2005-12-16T17:11:44Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Flip flop Flip flop Flip flop Flip flop I concede these are good quoted points. I don’t support Bush or his war effort. I think we were sold a bad bill of goods, and that before his last election, Bush pretty much said that he’d continue the war with or without previous justification (the ‘stay the course’ thing). However. As I mentioned in another pit thread long ago, I’d like to try to get people to stop using ‘flip flop’ as a political negative. Why? Because people can change their minds. I know I was reactionary when 9/11 happened. So were many people. I think many politicians feel differently today than they did then. Durring the last election, ‘Flip-flopping’ was the big buzz-word. Anyone who _ever_ changed their opinion was bad, BAD, and you couldn’t vote for them. Changing your opinion is what you do when you 1) realize things have changed, 2) have an ounce of sense, and 3) have a small enough ego to realize that you might, might be wrong. (And 4) Hi, Opal! Not necessary, but I had to do it!) Changing your mind isn’t a sin. I still think Bush is a two-faced liar who will milk Iraq until its dry, then find another ‘enemy’. Oh, and one more reason not to use ‘flip flop’ as a negative term… [http://www.surfwearhawaii.com/dropin/sandals/scott/images/creamsicle.jpg](http://www.surfwearhawaii.com/dropin/sandals/scott/images/creamsicle.jpg) C’mon, these are fun! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2005, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604/77 "2005-12-16T17:58:29Z")
> [@](#): > > he could and should have made that case, and left the WMDs out of it. Instead, he and Cheney and Condi and all them folks lied like crazy about WMDs, Add Clinton and Kerry to that list ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2005, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604/78 "2005-12-16T18:11:06Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Add Clinton and Kerry to that list Not this pile of shit again. Clinton and Kerry and a lot of people thought that Iraq might still have some banned weapons left over from before the 1st Gulf War. What they did NOT say is that they thought that Iraq had ongoing programs or, most importantly, that he posed a direct threat to the US. Contrary to popular belief, the mere existence of WMD in Iraq would not have been enough to legally an attack on sovereignty. You still have to prove (BEFORE you attack) that another country poses such an imminent threat to you that the only way you can defend yourself is through regime change. The assertion that Iraq was a threat to the US was a lie, and it was a lie that was not shared by Clinton or Kerry. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2005, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604/79 "2005-12-16T18:12:03Z")
> [@ArrMatey!](#): > > As I mentioned in another pit thread long ago, I’d like to try to get people to stop using ‘flip flop’ as a political negative. Why? > Because people can change their minds. I respectfully decline. Why? I’ll tell you. It’s because during the elections, and ever after, “flip flopper” was a favorite term used by Bush apologists. I take sadistic glee in throwing it right back. Changing one’s mind was taken as a sign of gross weakness or outright dishonesty. I toss it right back, in exactly the same spirit. > [@ArrMatey!](#): > > I still think Bush is a two-faced liar who will milk Iraq until its dry, then find another ‘enemy’. **I fully agree.** As evidence, I submit the following, with a reminder that the primary justification for our war was WMD: [http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/15/wmd-irrelevant/](http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/15/wmd-irrelevant/) Caught on Tape: Bush Admits WMD Were Irrelevant Yesterday on Brit Hume, he said he would have invaded even if he knew there were no weapons of mass destruction. Would have been nice if he’d mentioned this earlier. [http://streaming.americanprogress.org/ThinkProgress/2005/invasion.320.240.mov.htm](http://streaming.americanprogress.org/ThinkProgress/2005/invasion.320.240.mov.htm) HUME: So, if you had had this — if the weapons had been out of the equation because the intelligence did not conclude that he had them, it was still the right call? BUSH: **Absolutely**. 3/19/03: Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly — yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with **weapons of mass murder**. So, while he admits on tape that he would have invaded anyway, he still to this day insists that there were WMD, and has tried to slur and smear those who said different. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2005, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604/80 "2005-12-16T18:36:55Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Add Clinton and Kerry to that list Bullshit. This is bullshit. You are spouting bullshit. Here is a letter to Clinton from some neoCons. Where Clinton wanted to go after Bin Laden and Al Queda, and wanted to do so within the framework of The Law, the neoCons wanted him instead to go after Iraq. They wanted war. Apparently, since they felt they needed to write this letter, **it shows that Clinton did not share their view.** > [@the letter](#): > > January 26, **1998** > The Honorable William J. Clinton > President of the United States > Washington, DC > > Dear Mr. President: > > We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face **a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War**. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that **would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world**. That strategy should aim, above all, at the **removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime** from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. > > The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing **weapons of mass destruction** , therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s **chemical and biological weapons** production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. > Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver **weapons of mass destruction** , as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s **supply of oil** will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. > Given the **magnitude of the threat** , the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use **weapons of mass destruction**. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake **military action** as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy. > > We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration’s attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam’s regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect **our** vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. > > We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk. > > Sincerely, > > Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett > > Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky > > Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad > > William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman > > Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber > > Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick Did you catch the WMD arguments? How about the reference to OIL? From the London Review of Books > **[London Review of Books](https://www.lrb.co.uk/)** > > Europe’s leading magazine of ideas, published twice a month. Book reviews and essays (and much more online) renowned for their fearlessness, range and elegance. "Saddam Hussein’s destabilising influence – his ‘demonstrated willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon’ – raised the possibility of a ‘need for military intervention’. " [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-speech-wow-aka-if-i-say-it-it-must-be-true/335604.md?page=5)