March 4, 2004
“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”]February 14, 2003](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
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.”
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.
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
…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:
…and when Powell said this:
…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.
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?
As Giraffe said, your post was funny!