If memory serves, they retreated to the “well, he could have made them” justification a long time ago, back when even they had to admit that there were no WMDs. So, nothing new here.
The interesting question is how the American public would have reacted if the justification was a potential threat, not an imminent one.
So I thought - thanks for the confirmation.
Regards,
Shodan
That part of the American public which paid attention would have known that the arguement was not that the threat was imminent but that the threat had to be stopped before it became imminent.
The question as to what would have happened if the intelligence had been different is stupid, intelligence is always incomplete. The question is whether given the circumstances a type 1 error would be worse than a type 2 error.
And those of us who weren’t involved in a campaign to bullshit the public wouldn’t have focused on the meaning of the word “imminent” and understood that a country without weapons is probably not a threat.
On the flip side, all most people needed to know was that it was Iraq. So maybe it wouldn’t have mattered.
And those of us who value the lives of our countrymen over vain moral posturing understood that a country that has invaded two other countries and ihas programs in place to acquire WMD would probably be a threat again, sooner or later.
Perhaps the real admission here is that the intelligence was “wrong”. Course, he does say “what they got wrong” (emphasis added), so he’s not even copping to having helped cook the books.
Let’s face it: this old boy will never admit to anything.
Iraqi sovereignty is more important than American peace of mind. Or, it’s wrong to invade countries under false pretenses no matter how good it makes Republicans feel.
…Send them into stupid, unnecessary, unplanned wars? I hope nobody ever values my life so much they plot my death. Being held in such high esteem sounds very dangerous.
A case for war based on the idea something “probably” would’ve been a problem “sooner or later” is not only not compelling, it’s totally bankrupt in every way.
I’ll save you the trouble: “Why do I hate America?”
It is obvious to us now that although the CIA, which has spent billions collecting intelligence, the intelligence agencies of England, France, Germany, Russia, and Israel, every official of the previous administration, and every congressmen who had looked at the evidence agreed that a rogue nation had WMD, the correct thing would have been to ignore that evidence. Cheney will never admit it.
Not to America nor Americans, it wouldn’t.
But you knew that.
And, of course, Hussein attacked Iran with U.S. support, and invaded Kuwait after getting what he could reasonably interpret as a green light from the U.S. ambassador.
But you knew that too.
You are right, we should have waiting until Saddam started a nuclear war.
Trying to stop evil before it becomes unstoppable is totally bankrupt, that is why Chamberlain’s reputation is so much higher than Churchill’s.
Or worse, unleashed his voodoo magic and instigated the zombie apocalypse !
Which is just about as likely.
I doubt if all that many Americans would be willing to spend billions of dollars and, more importantly, the lives of their loved ones because Saddam might someday start working on WMDs. Plus there are better ways of stopping him - like UN inspections and sanctions, which actually did work.
Indeed intelligence is always incomplete and lots of it is inaccurate and not trustworthy. That’s why working intelligence systems don’t provide top leaders with raw intelligence. Unless there was truly an imminent threat, the thing to do is to dig deeper. I trust you aren’t saying that the incompleteness of intelligence supports any president taking any action, no matter how badly it is supported.
It’s really just a matter of politics, as it usually is with the Dems (i.e., how many times has it been said around here that while people may not agree with Pubs, at least you know what they think and that they’ll do what they say they’ll do?).
If we had done nothing and Saddam had developed WMD and some sort of catastrophe had occurred as a result, all the lefties around here would be screaming with outrage that we stood by and didn’t do anything to stop it.
By that “logic” we should attack every country on Earth, just in case a “catastrophe” might occur there.
That is why all these countries lined up with us in the Security Council to vote to authorize the invasion. Whoops.
Unlike the Bushies, they hadn’t made up their mind already. When the UN inspectors went to the supposed locations of the WMDs and found nothing - which happened before the invasion, remember - your average competent leader would wonder if the intelligence for WMDs was incorrect or out of date. At the time I figured that if the other countries, who were surely given intelligence about the WMDs, still didn’t support us it must mean that the intelligence wasn’t that good.
It doesn’t matter what the intelligence was a year before the invasion. It mattered what it was a week before the invasion - unless Bush, like the real Rufus T. Firefly, put a deposit on the battlefield already and therefore needed to have a war.
The Duchy of Grand Fenwick might become a threat someday also. Let’s invade.
As long as you’ve brought this up, I can assume you support the invasion of Poland thanks to the imminent threat to the Germans? After all, they were right next to each other, not half a world away.
Actually, we don’t know that, as it’s not a fact. There’s nothing at all there (in that disputed transcript) that give Saddam a “green light”. At worst, it could be argued that we were saying that we didn’t want to get involved.
The USA (and Blix agreed) had every right and need to threaten Iraq with force in order to get Saddam to let the Inspectors back in. However, once they did, (and they weren’t finding anything much) then we no longer had any reason to invade.
Yes, Saddam was a danger, and yes, few reasonable persons have any doubt that if given free rein he’d build more WMD’s. He might even have had a few prototypes etc hidden in those truckloads of shit he sent to Syria after the Ultimatum but before he let Blix back in. But as long as Blix and his blue-helmeted buddies were allowed free rein to inspect, then Saddam was no longer any real danger to the USA.
Except for the rather minor point that every country on Earth hasn’t attacked it’s neighbors and its own people with WMD already, tried to assassinate one of our presidents, and shown an all around belligerent and antagonistic attitude toward us.