# Hubris: The Iraq War **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 19, 2013, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759 "2013-02-19T02:07:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 29
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/561 "2013-03-05T16:10:39Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Mace, attempted to rewrite history by emphasizing the publics recogognition that war was more likely than not. No, I did not. You are re-writing history by claiming I did. I emphasized that the American public had a pretty good what Bush was up to. At any rate, if you are now going to claim that your “point is that the Peace Play by Bush is as relevant as the War Plays by Bush”, then you have conceded the argument. Bush should have been given the ability prepare to wage war, but should have been constrained further by Congress when it came to actually waging war. I guess we’re done now and can all go home. Thank-you-very-much. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/562 "2013-03-05T16:16:31Z")
> [@](#): > > Do you know that the responders were conceding that war was likely because Saddam Hussein was not going to cooperate and then the UN would authorize it. I don’t see that in the poll, but even if it is, so what? Again, it’s not John Mace trying to re-write history…it’s you not following along with what people are trying to tell you, and instead jerking your knee over every little thing. > [@](#): > > And notice the 8% increase in optimism that we would not go to war from the month before. Yeah, I noticed that…and, again, so what? Whether it’s 70% or 79%…or 51%…it still backs up what John was saying about ‘Americans knew he was itching for war’ and does NOT backup your assertion that John was trying to re-write history. How hard is this to understand? > [@](#): > > Bush was selling his role as peacekeeper in chief and was working in the eyes of the public. And that us because in September 2002, the rift between Powell and Cheney on going throuh the UN became somewhat public, but the President publically sided with Powell. Again, so what? What point are you trying to make here? Bush certainly took us to war, and by this point it was pretty clear (to everyone, both for and against Bush) that this is exactly what he was doing. In his mind he’d tried the peaceful way of using the UN inspectors…and felt that they were not doing what they should be doing, since they weren’t finding what he was convinced was there. But more fundamentally, he simply wanted SH and the Baathist regime gone from Iraq, and based on the poll you were given the majority of Americans pretty clearly understood that as well. I certainly did, and knew that the whole WMD was more a pretext for war, and using SH and Iraq’s past actions were the excuse that allowed us to justify using military force. > [@](#): > > Bush was selling his peacemaker creds along with the idea that given the authority to use force up front, would more force the UN and SH to act and be disarmed peacefully. Horseshit. Bush was pretty obviously just doing the minimum he felt he had too in order to dot the i’s and cross the t’s wrt ‘peaceful methods’ before pulling the trigger. You are attempting to rationalize and handwave away the complicity from Congress in giving him the authority they gave him wrt the war because you have an extreme rose colored glasses view of what actually transpired and how it transpired. > [@](#): > > You may not like that argument, but it had some validity during the dynamics in play at the time. Whether I like the argument or not is irrelevent…what IS relevant is that it’s not an accurate view of the real events, and instead it’s a fantasy view of half truths and either mis-remembered, half remembered or blatantly false impressions and understandings of what actually happened. > [@](#): > > My point is that the Peace Play by Bush is as relevant as the War Plays by Bush and should not be shelved because so many here are perturbed that Dem Lawmakers didn’t vote for the Levin Amendment so hypothetically Bush’s crazed and mad push for war would not be stopped. :smack: > [@](#): > > Mace, attempted to rewrite history by emphasizing the publics recogognition that war was more likely than not. No…he didn’t. He demonstrated exactly what his point was with a freaking cite that pretty much showed you were wrong. That you can’t seem to grasp what the cite even says NOR what he was trying to say just underscores how frustrating it is to have even a simple discussion with you. > [@](#): > > Like I said that perception could be based on no trust that Saddam would back down in the way that he actually did. Except that he didn’t back down fast enough…by the time he was even making noises about backing down it was too late. The decision had already been made, and contrary to your fantasy view of the time Bush had already been given the authority to do exactly what he did…push through a full up war with Iraq and conquer the country. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/563 "2013-03-05T16:23:07Z")
> [@XT](#): > > ETA: Sorry Human Action…should have just waited for you to explain it yourself to him. No worries, I thought my point would be obvious, but it turned out not be. **NotfooledbyW** ’s thesis seems to hinge on Bush being a liar and a brilliant con man; I think it’s far more likely he was just badly wrong about Iraq and fairly incompetent at foreign affairs. Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity, and all that. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Bush was selling his peacemaker creds along with the idea that given the authority to use force up front, would more force the UN and SH to act and be disarmed peacefully. > > You may not like that argument, but it had some validity during the dynamics in play at the time. That’s not a red flag, that the peacemaker demands broad war powers up front before he’ll even pursue diplomacy? > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > My point is that the Peace Play by Bush is as relevant as the War Plays by Bush and should not be shelved because so many here are perturbed that Dem Lawmakers didn’t vote for the Levin Amendment so hypothetically Bush’s crazed and mad push for war would not be stopped. No one’s shelving it, it’s been evaluated and given its due place in the historical narrative of the war. My perturbations run much deeper than that, by the way. Again, note the symmetry with Johnson and the Gulf of Tonkin. It’s US that needs to change; Bush deserves plenty of blame, but not all of it. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/564 "2013-03-05T16:36:24Z")
> [@](#): > > “You’re convinced it was lies,” -Human Events #558 Today, 10:26 AM #558 > Today, 10:26 AM 064a2026 . When Bush told us on the eve of war, that trying to work with UN Inspectors must include kicking out the UN inspectors at the peak of fruition of their work that had achieved by then the full cooperation by Iraq; and that means that we must trust Bush when he says he tried to work with the UN to exhaust all peaceful means - damn right I see as a lie. Those who don’t see that as a lie are surely being fooled by W. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/565 "2013-03-05T16:44:56Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > . > > When Bush told us on the eve of war, that trying to work with UN Inspectors must include kicking out the UN inspectors at the peak of fruition of their work that had achieved by then the full cooperation by Iraq; and that means that we must trust Bush when he says he tried to work with the UN to exhaust all peaceful means - damn right I see as a lie. > > Those who don’t see that as a lie are surely being fooled by W. [Bush’s Invasion Speech](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/18/usa.iraq) > [@](#): > > Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq’s neighbors and against Iraq’s people. > [@](#): > > Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. Lying, or mistaken? A case can be made for either; both are damning of Bush as a president, just in different ways. I just wonder, what makes you so _certain_ that he was lying? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/566 "2013-03-05T16:55:26Z")
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW] When Bush told us on the eve of war, that trying to work with UN Inspectors must include kicking out the UN inspectors at the peak of fruition of their work that had achieved by then the full cooperation by Iraq; and that means that we must trust Bush when he says he tried to work with the UN to exhaust all peaceful means - damn right I see as a lie. [/QUOTE] According to Human Action’s cite on Bush’s speech, this is the only part where he mentions the UN and inspection: > [@](#): > > The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again – because we are not dealing with peaceful men. Where is the lie here? Remember, his baseline assumption is that all of Iraq’s past actions in blocking or hampering UN inspection obviously (to him and his administration) meant they were hiding stuff. After all of that, even opening up things fully (which, afaik they never did…not full and open transparency of everything) simply meant they had finally succeeded in hiding things so well that the UN inspectors wouldn’t find it. By this point, it was far, far to late…probably years too late…to change the course of events. SH and the Iraqi’s would have had to throw open everything to inspection long before we all got to this point. > [@](#): > > Those who don’t see that as a lie are surely being fooled by W. Perhaps you could point out exactly what the lie is here? Honestly man, I think you give Bush way too much credit. To you, he seems to be some sort of modern Machiavelli…to me, he was a bumbling fool who was so sure of his own facts and rectitude that he ignored anything that contradicted his world view and his view point on events. In fact, ironically, he seems to have been remarkably similar to someone else posting in this thread… ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/567 "2013-03-05T17:25:23Z")
> [@](#): > > “No one’s shelving it, it’s been evaluated and given its due place in the historical narrative of the war.” -Human Action#563 Today, 11:23 AM 064a1123 Where, when, by whom? When I came here I wrote that Maddow’s documentary skipped right over the significance of peaceful inspections entirely just like the PBS Documentary several years ago. The peaceful inspections that Bush says he wanted. Bringing up the success of the inspections and Bush’s turn toward the UN brought much derision and charges of conspiracy theory and revising history toward me. Now its all well documented an analyzed. If so where is it? Why did Bush turn down the offer by SH to let the CIA in? Where is the full blown analysis of that? The man who carried that offer was a major player for Iraq equivalent to Colin Powell’s US role on Iraq at the UN. He’s been disappeared from history since 2005. There’s no curiosity about a major peace play by Iraq that Bush, the PeaceKeeper flat out turned down for no reason. No one wonders why? Those who should are still stuck on “If only the Levin Amendment had passed all would be well” Being curious on things outside the established norms around here apparently is a no no. But keep going. I am curious about that too. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/568 "2013-03-05T17:58:54Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Where, when, by whom? I was referring to this thread and the participants in it. No one’s argued that inspections didn’t take place or didn’t matter, at least that I can recall. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > When I came here I wrote that Maddow’s documentary skipped right over the significance of peaceful inspections entirely just like the PBS Documentary several years ago. > > The peaceful inspections that Bush says he wanted. > > Bringing up the success of the inspections and Bush’s turn toward the UN brought much derision and charges of conspiracy theory and revising history toward me. Yeah, I don’t think that was the source of derision or conspiracy talk. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Now its all well documented an analyzed. > > If so where is it? I’d start with one of Amazon’s [43,733](http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Iraq+War) results for “Iraq War.” There’s been no shortage of coverage of this war or its causes. I’m sorry two television documentaries weren’t up to your standards, but that’s not the sum of Iraq War journalism or history. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Why did Bush turn down the offer by SH to let the CIA in? > > Where is the full blown analysis of that? In those books, I’d wager. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > The man who carried that offer was a major player for Iraq equivalent to Colin Powell’s US role on Iraq at the UN. > > He’s been disappeared from history since 2005. > > There’s no curiosity about a major peace play by Iraq that Bush, the PeaceKeeper flat out turned down for no reason. I’m sure there was a reason, though it’s probably one you’d call “insane”. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > No one wonders why? Those who should are still stuck on “If only the Levin Amendment had passed all would be well” > > Being curious on things outside the established norms around here apparently is a no no. > > But keep going. I am curious about that too. The Levin Amendment was brought up in response to your theory that Congress was blameless in the Iraq War. Do you actually have anything to say on these matters, or are you content to paint yourself as the maverick investigator shaking up our fragile eggshell minds? I assure you, we can handle your curiosity. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/569 "2013-03-05T18:04:21Z")
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW] Why did Bush turn down the offer by SH to let the CIA in? [/QUOTE] Do you have a credible cite showing that SH and the Iraqi’s in fact did offer to let the CIA in for full and transparent inspections? Seems HIGHLY implausible to me, unless it was some sort of last desperate attempt by SH to avoid the invasion on the eve of said invasion. That said and assuming you didn’t just make it up, I’d guess the answer is that by then we had already started preparations for the invasion, that Bush et al didn’t trust Saddam and his merry men to actually allow full and transparent inspections, merely to say they were going too, and finally, again, that Bush et al would have thought that even letting the CIA in would mean nothing, since their baseline assumption was that he had the things but that he’d gone to great effort to hide them. > [@](#): > > The man who carried that offer was a major player for Iraq equivalent to Colin Powell’s US role on Iraq at the UN. > > He’s been disappeared from history since 2005. Who are you talking about, and, again, do you have a credible cite? > [@](#): > > There’s no curiosity about a major peace play by Iraq that Bush, the PeaceKeeper flat out turned down for no reason. This has been addressed yet you keep ignoring it and just repeating the same thing over and over again. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/570 "2013-03-05T18:14:44Z")
> [@](#): > > The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again – because we are not dealing with peaceful men. -Bush Mar 17 2003 posted by XT #566 Today, 11:55 AM 064a1155. > [@](#): > > Where is the lie here? Remember, his baseline assumption is that all of Iraq’s past actions in blocking or hampering UN inspection obviously (to him and his administration) meant they were hiding stuff. After all of that, even opening up things fully (which, afaik they never did…not full and open transparency of everything) simply meant they had finally succeeded in hiding things so well that the UN inspectors wouldn’t find it. By this point, it was far, far to late…probably years too late…to change the course of events. SH and the Iraqi’s would have had to throw open everything to inspection long before we all got to this point. XT #566 Today, 11:55 AM 064a1155. [/QUOTE] That is a lie because he does not put all that dastardly SH behavior from the pre-1441 inspections into the proper context of what SH was doing the past few months. He could not cite the post-1441 inspections because then his lie in the same speech that he has tried to work with the UN. That is a lie because Bush agreed with the language of UN Res 1441 wherin Bush agreed to give SH a final opportunity to comply which would be decided by tough and immediate UN inspections. Bush wanted that Resolution and tougher inspections to be able to exhaust all peaceful means in order to avoid war. > [@](#): > > "After all of that, even opening up things fully (which, afaik they never did…not full and open transparency of everything) simply meant they had finally succeeded in hiding things so well that the UN inspectors wouldn’t find it. XT #566 Today, 11:55 AM 064a1155. You’ve got some serious hook, line and sinker issues going on here, that I won’t be able to reply until later. But that is exactly what Bush, rightwing Iraq invasion warmongers, and the mainstream media are quite pleased to have everybody believe. This is also tied to Iraq’s offer in December 2002, to have the CIA come in to search and analyze with the inspectors. Iraq could not be more fully open than that. I will get back to you on this as Soon as I can. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/571 "2013-03-05T18:17:53Z")
“I’m sure there was a reason, though it’s probably one you’d call “insane”.” Human Action But we do not know what it is. But I thought everything has been analyzed? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/572 "2013-03-05T18:56:18Z")
For XT: > [@](#): > > Sunday, December 22, 2002 FOX NEWS WASHINGTON — Saddam Hussein’s adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to send its agents to Iraq to point out to U.N. inspectors sites the Bush administration suspects of weapons development. > Al-Saadi also said during a news conference in Baghdad that Iraq was prepared to answer any questions raised by the United States and Britain. > “We are ready to deal with each of those questions if you ask us,” he said. > Al-Saadi complained that Secretary of State Colin Powell and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw based their criticisms of Iraq’s weapons declaration on “old, rehashed reports” from what he called the previous “discredited” arms inspection program in the 1990s. > As the United Nations increases the number of weapons inspectors in Iraq, the United States will provide the experts with more detailed intelligence, American officials said. > Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix urged the U.S. and Britain to hand over any additional evidence they have about Iraq’s secret weapons programs. The Bush administration has already been providing the inspectors with information about Iraqi weapons sites, officials said. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/573 "2013-03-05T19:12:21Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > “I’m sure there was a reason, though it’s probably one you’d call “insane”.” Human Action > > But we do not know what it is. But I thought everything has been analyzed? [Reading further:](http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/Iraq/MOI%20-%20Iraq%20Daily/iraq-daily-defiance-122402.htm) > [@](#): > > He [al-Saadi] accused Powell and Straw of ignoring Iraq’s replies and making judgments before the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission could fully examine the Iraqi report. > > “Why don’t they let the specialized organs of the United Nations get on with their task?" he asked at a televised news conference. “Why interfere in this rude fashion?” > [@](#): > > “We don’t even have an objection if the CIA itself comes and joins the inspection teams to show them the places, which they claim, have something," he said. He supposed that they would facilitate the inspectors work. [From here:](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/dec/23/iraq.ewenmacaskill) > [@](#): > > The UN chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, said at the end of last week that if the US and Britain had such evidence, they should hand it over. > > US officials said at the weekend that they have been handing over intelligence and will provide more specific information to the inspectors over the next fortnight What can we surmise from this? 1. Al-Saadi wanted UNMOVIC to do the inspecting. 2. He offered to have the CIA come and show UNMOVIC the sites they suspected. 3. The US was already supplying UNMOVIC with this information, and Resolution 1441 did not authorize anyone but UNMOVIC and IAEA to carry out inspections. Simple enough? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/574 "2013-03-05T20:45:30Z")
> [@](#): > > What can we surmise from this? > > 1. Al-Saadi wanted UNMOVIC to do the inspecting. > 2. He offered to have the CIA come and show UNMOVIC the sites they suspected. > 3. The US was already supplying UNMOVIC with this information, and Resolution 1441 did not authorize anyone but UNMOVIC and IAEA to carry out inspections. > > -Human Action #573 Today, 02:12 PM. 064p0212 You and others are saying that Bush invaded Iraq because Iraq was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from UN inspectors in March 2003 and he had intelligence that left no doubt that those weapons were there. I hope that you accept that Bush claimed and still claims to be committed to exhausting all peaceful means to avoid war, which means that this concession from Iraq was one helluva significant peace gesture, and a good opportunity to acquire the best answers yet on the status of Iraq’s possession of WMD. I choose not to believe when he claimed to have intelligence that left him no doubt that Iraq was hiding WMD from UN inspectors, because Bush turned down the chance to get the best intelligence first hand, on the ground inside Iraq. Bush also did not share his doubtless intelligence with UNMOVIC as you said he was doing all along. Bush also screwed up his scam when he sent an offer to the UNSC around March 07 2003 where he tried to cut a deal with the UNSC which could have left Saddam Hussein remain in power at that late point in time. So if Bush had doubtless intel on March 07 that Iraq was hiding WMD, it makes no sense that he would offer a draft resolution that would have allowed SH to stay in power. Bush wanted Iraq declared disarmed in ten days and if not the UNSC was to authorize war. The UNSC told Bush to take a hike, inspections were working but they should take a few months and be done. So from March 8, to March 17 Bush got some new fresh intel somehow, that was doubtless and justified war. I say Bush lied about what Intelligence he had to start the. And he lied when he says that the intelligence anslysts and agents got it all wrong, If Bush did not let them go in when Iraq offered - he should not be allowed to blame the intelligence community. They would have found what we found out in 2004. Iraq had no WMD. He could have gotten the best intelligence ever if he were not such a liar and really wanted to keep the peace. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/575 "2013-03-05T23:45:08Z")
> [@](#): > > The Levin Amendment was brought up in response to your theory that Congress was blameless in the Iraq War. -Human Action #568 Today, 12:58 PM And the Levin Amendment had absolutely nothing to do with one single decision, foul play or lie that Bush told prior to or after the AUMF was passed. It is not a theory that Bush made all the choices on his own that he made with the authority that Congress gave him. The Levin Anendmen fa Omsiled to pass. Another reality. And for all the lessons for posterity we are supposed to promote by giving a good proper scolding to Senator Clinton for her judgment in voting to authorize war only if necessary. I’d like to know how that is going. HRC will be remembered in history for much more than that vote and she may have lost a shot at first woman President because of that vote. But agreed with her reasoning to make that vote and I respect her decision to not apologize for it to appease those in her party that demanded it. She has no reason to apologize for what Bush told her to get it and what he did after he got it. Senstor ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2013, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/576 "2013-03-06T04:28:40Z")
All I know is that those of who didn’t want to give Bush the authority to wage war were right. You can argue all day about what might have been, but we know what actually was. We were right. The other side was wrong. End of story. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2013, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/577 "2013-03-06T10:55:34Z")
I wrote this at least four or five years ago, and have never encountered the anti-war orthodoxy that I have found here, which seems to lean much more to leniency towards Bush, not to the extreme that Iraq Invasion defenders do, but it definitely appears to be a much softer reaction than I’ve found over the years where most war opponents, including late-comers to opposition, have had. My early impression of what is causing this subconscious leniency toward Bush from avid opponents of the Iraq invasion is the basic human drive to be able to say “I TOLD YOU SO”. I opposed this war as much as anyone, Letter Writing to Congress, White House, Newspapers and marched in the streets… So this is quite fascinating to find a certain orthodoxy here that has set in. GWBUSH: Text Of Bush Speech On Iraq WASHINGTON March 17, 2003 \*NFBW definition of the lie or lack of honesty in Bush’s words (AP) Below is the text of President Bush’s prime-time address Monday on Iraq, as transcribed by e Media Millworks Inc.: > [@](#): > > TEXT (a): My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. ~~~For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all of its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.~~~ Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. \*NFBW (a) True, but note the deliberate avoidance of mentioning UN Resolution 1441 and the current status of WMD disarmament inspections Bush mentions sending hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq over twelve years, but he fails to mention that this time, finally, the Chief Weapons Inspector has defined Iraq’s cooperation to be proactive and only a few longstanding old issues remain to be resolved. > [@](#): > > TEXT (b) : Our good faith has not been returned] \*NFBW (b) This is a flat out lie. (See a above) > [@](#): > > TEXT (c) The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. \*NFBW (c) This is an example of distorting the historical perspective by confusing Iraq’s history prior to UN Res 1441 with the more critical history of what was happening on the day of this speech > [@](#): > > TEXT (d) : Over the years, U.N. weapons inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraq regime have failed again and again because we are not dealing with peaceful men. \*NFBW (d) True before, not true on the day of this speech > [@](#): > > TEXT (e) : Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq’s neighbors and against Iraq’s people. \*NFBW (e) There was A GREAT DEAL of doubt within the proper U.S. intelligence community but Bush chose to listen to the special Pentagon intelligence gang of pro-regime change advocates that may have had no doubt but they also had no credible evidence for all their claims. Saying there was no doubt is a serious lie. It is one of Bush’s most serious lies. And when it was discovered a few months into the invasion that Iraq did not possess the undoubted most lethal weapons ever devised there has been no direct inquiry into what intelligence allowed Bush to make this outlandish claim. > [@](#): > > TEXT (f): The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. \*NFBW (f) Restating the obvious fact that the Iraq regime had a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East which is a lie of omission because UN Res 1441 gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply despite the regimes well known history of aggression. The history of aggression stopped in December 2002 it was not continuing at all to this moment in time. > [@](#): > > TEXT (g) : It has a deep hatred of America and our friends and it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al-Qaida \*NFBW (g) Here Bush combines a fact about Iraq’s regime that is followed by a flat out lie of pure exaggeration. We now know Bush and Cheney tortured KSM trying to get some facts to support this claim and failed. If they had the facts on the day of this speech, torture of KSM would not have been necessary > [@](#): > > TEXT (h): The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other. \*NFBW (h) pure hypothetical unsubstantiated speculation is no basis for launching an offensive invasion of another country. This is pure fear-mongering on the part of Bush. > [@](#): > > TEXT (i): The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat, but we will do everything to defeat it. \*NFBW (i) Bush is talking about the hypothetical threat (h) that was based upon nothing that has ever been substantiated. So this is an example of Bush’s quixotic fantasy threat world. The UN inspectors were forcefully and deliberately reducing any threat that Iraq posed that could lead to the danger of Iraq handing chem/bio weapons over to al Qaeda for attacks on the U.S. homeland. > [@](#): > > TEXT(j): Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed. \*NFBW (j)If W is talking about WMD obtained by other terrorists, with the help of Iraq, this is a lie and W had no evidence of such intent. > [@](#): > > TEXT (k): The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me as commander of chief by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep . \*NFBW (k) The US of A does NOT have the authority to use military force to assure its own national security if it is based upon speculation and assumptions and hypothetical “Imagineering” for the purposes of fear-mongering. This statement by Bush does put the lie to those who’ve decided that invading Iraq was justified based upon Saddam being mean, brutal and cruel to his population.] > [@](#): > > TEXT (l): Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq. \*NFBW (l) Congress recognized a “continuing threat” that was to be dealt with by UN inspections and enforcement procedures backed by the United States Congress. Congress only would support the use of force if The UN failed to act (which they did not fail to do) and/or IF Saddam Hussein failed to cooperate (which he did not fail to do). Bush’s lie of omission here is that he fails to mention that Congress responded to his request to use military force to disarm Iraq only and it was Bush’s word, IF necessary. > [@](#): > > TEXT (m): America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. \*NFBW (m) Flat outright bold faced lie by Bush. No doubt about it. > [@](#): > > TEXT (n): We believe in the mission of the United Nations. \*NFBW (n) Another flat out Bush lie if he is trying to include himself in this assertion. See m] > [@](#): > > TEXT (o): One reason the U.N. was founded after the Second World War was to confront aggressive dictators actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the peace. \*NFBW (o) This is meaningless Bush chatter. His remarks here may be so, but in the case of Iraq in March 2003, the UN was fully confronting the Iraq regime regarding the regimes WMD disarmament obligations. Bush’s threat of use of military force played a major role in that confrontation, but the fact that Bush is trying to ignore is that on the day Bush spoke these words, the Iraq regime was being confronted and the Iraq regime was thus far complying. > [@](#): > > TEXT (p):In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687, both still in effect, the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. \*NFBW (p) This is a lie in the sense that seven days prior to this remark, Bush approved an attempt to offer a resolution for vote in the UN Security council on an authorization by the UN to allow regime change in Iraq. The vote for war was not there whether the French threatened a veto or not. If the US was authorized under Resolutions 678 and 687 why did Bush try again to get authorization? He’s lying here. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2013, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/578 "2013-03-06T11:14:49Z")
> [@](#): > > It is not a theory that Bush made all the choices on his own that he made with the authority that Congress gave him. And for all the lessons for posterity we are supposed to promote by giving a good proper scolding to Senator Clinton for her judgment in voting to authorize war only if necessary. I’d like to know how that is going. > > HRC will be remembered in history for much more than that vote and she may have lost a shot at first woman President because of that vote. But I agreed with her reasoning to make that vote and I respect her decision to not apologize for it to appease those in her party that demanded it. -Nfldbw #575 Yesterday, 06:45 PM 064p0645 > [@](#): > > All I know is that those of who didn’t want to give Bush the authority to wage war were right. You can argue all day about what might have been, but we know what actually was. We were right. The other side was wrong. End of story. -John Mace #576 Yesterday, 11:28 PM 064p1128 > [@](#): > > My early impression of what is causing this subconscious leniency toward Bush from avid opponents of the Iraq invasion is the basic human drive to be able to say “I TOLD YOU SO”. -Ntfldbw Today, 05:55 AM #577 065a0555 I wrote post #577 prior to reading John Mace’s post just before that. And we know that John Mace came easily to his early pre-cognition that all would be bad if Bush were given the authority to wage war ‘if necessary’ because John Mace has told us that he didn’t care if SH had WMD or not. > [@](#): > > I thought it was a huge mistake and couldn’t wait to vote him out of office. As noted, I didn’t care if SH had WMDs or not. I did not consider him a threat to the US. -John Mace 02-23-2013 04:29 PM 054p0429 ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2013, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/579 "2013-03-06T11:18:00Z")
> [@](#): > > All I know is that those of who didn’t want to give Bush the authority to wage war were right. You can argue all day about what might have been, but we know what actually was. We were right. The other side was wrong. End of story. -John Mace #576 Yesterday, 11:28 PM 064p1128 I would argue some, not much “about what might have been”, but my real argument is attention on WHAT BUSH DID WITH WHAT HE ASKED FOR AND GOT, and the lies and deception and misrepresentation that he and his Adminstration pushed to start a war and the lies they still tell today to maintain the myths that have set in about that war and the drive for war. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2013, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/580 "2013-03-06T11:34:12Z")
> [@](#): > > 1. The US was already supplying UNMOVIC with this information, and Resolution 1441 did not authorize anyone but UNMOVIC and IAEA to carry out inspections. Simple enough? -Human Action #573 Today, 02:12 PM. 064p0212 Such a tendency to believe what White House or US officials say and not what the Iraqis were saying is a huge part of the problem. The White House and Blair Street may have put some token intelligence out by December 2002, but it was not worth the paper it was printed on. UK and US intelligence had to come after kicking and screaming the whole time against giving it up. And what the did give up, including all that came in Powell’s big speech to the UN was quickly refuted and dismissed publically by UNMOVIC and the IAEA Chief Weapons inspectors. On your second point that the UNSC Resolution authorized only UNMOVIC and IAEA to conduct weapons inspections ----- tut tut tut ----- the UNSC did not authorize Bush to kick the inspectors out and then invade. There would have had to been cooardination etc headed by the UN authorities, but not let them come in… Give me a break. Iraq also offered to let the FBI and WMD experts and analysts from the US Military if that could avoid war… Bush said no… basically let the UN handle it. A Reasonable person should be able to conclude that Bush is lying when he agrees with the myth that he was a VICTIM of bad intelligence. I do not see the CIA turning down a chance to get on the ground inside Iraq if their mission in life means anything. The ‘turn down’ had to come from the White House. You want to blame the UNSC for not facilitating that Iraq peace initiative… That is more leniency toward Bush, that I find fascinating coming from an oppnent of the US invasion of Iraq. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759.md?page=28) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759.md?page=30)