A new scoop from Spanish newspaper El Pais: A transcript of a discussion Bush had in February 2003 with Jose Maria Aznar, Prime Minister of Spain, reveals:
(A translation of the full conversation follows but it seems to have been done by Babelfish or something, you know how that works . . .)
Together with the original Downing Street Memo, I’d say this makes a pretty strong case (if anyone still has any doubt) that we were led into war based on a pack of lies.
Cite? Or are you of the impression that Bush alleged he only made the decision to invade Iraq a couple of days before he did so? Clearly, the threat the administration and most of the world’s intelligence agencies believed Iraq posed existed long before this meeting took place, and based upon that threat, Bush had already arrived at the decision to get rid of Hussein by the time this meeting took place, rather than wait for yet another meaningless, toothless and useless U.N. resolution.
Ahem…I would also quibble with the inflammatory wording of the thread’s title, BG. Bush wasn’t set on war; he was set on removing Hussein. Given that Hussein declined to abdicate, war became the tool necessary to remove him. There’s a difference, you see.
I know you love to attempt to paint Bush as a bloodthirsty ghoul out to spill as much blood as possible, but the reality is that this just isn’t so. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that had Bush had some way of removing Hussein short of war, and its attendant American and Iraqi deaths, he would have been most happy to have done so.
The average mugger would probably prefer for people to just give them their wallets. But when people decline to do so, violence and threats of violence become “the tool necessary”. That doesn’t diminish their responsibility for using violence.
Um, first, this does nothing to further the claim that we were lead into war on a “pack of lies.” At the very worst case I think we’ve established we were lead into war based on faulty intelligence.
This just shows that Bush was dead set on the war in March, I think everyone who was alive already knew this. Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the President of the United States saying he intends to prosecute a war without a U.N. resolution. Read over the United States Constitution carefully, read over all the treaties we have signed carefully, read over all the Federal statutes carefully, there is nothing that makes it illegal or improper for the United States to conduct its foreign policy actions (including the levying of war) without U.N. permission.
No treaty we’ve signed has taken away our status as a sovereign state nor has it taken away our right to decide for ourselves whether or not we will engage in warfare.
But, by March Bush had already given speeches concerning all the intelligence he had, all the information was already out there. This does nothing to suggest he was dead set on war before he had information about Saddam’s regime.
There’s still never been any solid evidence that Bush lied about WMDs, there’s only evidence that Bush received bad intelligence about them. Anyone who remembers all the speeches Bush gave in the run-up to war remembers that Bush’s sole casus belli was not the presence of WMDs. But rather it was a combination of issues (like Saddam’s refusal to cooperate fully with inspectors, and Saddam’s glaring human rights abuses.) WMD became the center point of the left’s opposition to the war because it was the one part of Bush’s laundry list of reasons for invading they could actually counter. No one on the left could even begin to counter Saddam’s blatant disregard for the terms of the cease-fire or his humanitarian abuses. As usual, though, the left is willing to allow mass murder as long as it has the chance of scoring them points on the home front or as long as their support for it is part of some greater opposition to America (as anti-Americanism is one of the cornerstones of leftist ideology.)
And go where, Starv? And do what? Did The Leader find a country willing to accept the Saddam Clan and the security burdens thereof? Not that I heard. So, looked at from that angle, Bush’s “offer” boils down to “If you are willing to commit suicide, I won’t kill you.” And yet he turned it down! Some people, huh?
By Feb 2003, hadn’t Bush already said publicly that he wasn’t going to seek a UN resolution? Powell’s big dog and pony show was in Jan '03, right? If not then, it must have been shortly thereafter because we invaded in March.
Powell’s dog and pony show was Feb 5. It was pretty clear that he hadn’t convinced all the UNSC members, so it’s not surprising that Bush never even brought the war issue to a vote there.
I guess I’m not seeing any smoking gun here, BG. Not that I don’t believe Bush was bent on war from the get-go, but this memo isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on in terms of proving that.
Newsflash: BrainGlutton’s mind is so open to new avenues of attack against Bush, that in these matters it has more or less fallen right out of his head. The only real reason to participate in these threads is to laugh at how stupid he is in his hilarious belief that Bush will some day be impeached.
**Elucidator **is certainly capable of defending himself, but you’re pulling that unpatriotic charge out of your ass, Martin. Patriotism isn’t measured by a person’s support for any given president or policy. You should know that.
Then maybe you should explain your reasoning for saying he wasn’t patriotic. Oh, wait - it’s you. Got it. It’s because you’re a fucking douchebag retard.