Hubris: The Iraq War

Great Debates
281

They will not bring up inspections or the fact that Saddam’s top science Adviser and liason to the UN negotiations and set up for the return of inspectors in December 2002 made a public offer on Saddam Hussein’s behalf to allow the CIA to come into Iraq and search for WMD directly alongside the UN teams.
His Name is Amer al Saadi… He was a huge figure in the story about inspections. He has been dissappeared from existence and news reports since last being reported in CIA custody in 2005.

He’s gone. He called Bush and Blair liars.

He does not exist in the news or on google or anywhere anymore.

I have written to news organizations and my Senators and Representatives to find out what happened to him… Nothing. He does not exist.

Anti-War liberals are the least curious about what happened to Amir al Saadi.
You want to start a discussion about inspections that may threaten Bush’s make believe world that Iraq did not let the inspectors in…?

Starting asking what happened to General Amir al Saadi.

282

It’s a rhetorical device to make people see the absurdity of their claims.

Perhaps you should be more than a “casual observer” if you are going to take pot shots are posters here. This thread is 6 pages long, and if you can’t see my position clearly stated, it’s because you haven’t bothered to read it.

BTW, from page one:

That not clear enough for you?

283

Couldn’t fix the previous post so I am reposting it.

NotfooledbyW 02-24-2013 10:55 AM Amir al Saadi?

That’s a wild claim. It’s a CT claim, at that. “The media” wanted to have people in Iraq killed and maimed? Really? We’d need to see some positive evidence of that, not something along the lines of: they didn’t do “x”, and so that proves it. -John Mace 02-24-2013 09:54 AM (Post 16038959)
Were any Iraqis maimed and killed in Bush’s ‘final days of Decision’ to kick inspectors out and launch a preemptive and needless war in March 2003? Were any Iraqis being maimed and killed by the UN Security Council’s Inspection Regime thrust upon Iraq in December 2002? Did the Press from Fox News to MSNBC and the Washington Post and New York Times (Judith Miller reporting) assist the White House in the push for war as stenographers instead of journalists when those inspections were taking hold?

No Network wanted to be ‘out-Fox-News-ed’ on their appearance as a supporter of Bush as they helped beat the drums for war.

No one in this thread is giving Bush “a pass”. He bears the majority of the blame. You, actually, are the one who is trying to force-fit a black and white analysis of a complex subject. Both were mistakes. It doesn’t have to be either/or. Both were mistakes because you can’t have March 2003 without first having Oct 2002. -John Mace 02-24-2013 09:54 AM (Post 16038959)

But you can have March 2003 as THE MISTAKE without October2002 being a MISTAKE at al because the inspections actually and factually WORKED as intended.

You are doing exactly what Bush does to ease his mind about his decision IN MARCH 2003 to kill and maim Iraqis instead of letting the UN inspectors disarm Iraq peacefully for a few more months.

Have you heard the quotes by Bush where he says — Saddam didn’t let the inspectors in — ? He Throws back to pre-October 2002 Iraq actions and obliterates from his mind any acceptance that Iraq let the inspectors in.

It’s early yet. The 10 year anniversary of the invasion isn’t until next month. The media hoopla in looking back on that event has yet to begin. -John Mace 02-24-2013 09:54 AM (Post 16038959)

They will not bring up inspections or the fact that Saddam’s top science Adviser and liason to the UN negotiations and set up for the return of inspectors in December 2002 made a public offer on Saddam Hussein’s behalf to allow the CIA to come into Iraq and search for WMD directly alongside the UN teams.

His Name is Amir al Saadi… He was a huge figure in the story about inspections. He has been dissappeared from existence and news reports since last being reported in CIA custody in 2005.

He’s gone. He called Bush and Blair liars.

He does not exist in the news or on Google or anywhere anymore.

I have written to news organizations and my Senators and Representatives to find out what happened to him… Nothing. He does not exist.

Anti-War liberals are the least curious about what happened to Amir al Saadi.
You want to start a discussion about inspections that may threaten Bush’s make believe world that Iraq did not let the inspectors in…?

Starting asking what happened to General Amir al Saadi.

284

No. That false equivalence does not work. The are more differences than similarities but the main one being Iran has never invaded a neighbor got it’s ass kicked and sign a surrender agreement to be inspected and dissarmed, and then material breach that agreement for over a decade.

285

Here is where you are wrong. It is your opinion that it was a mistake in October 2002 because, and correct me if I am wrong, you said you did not care if Iraq had WMD or not.

So from your perspective, and your perspective alone, you see the October 2002 vote as a mistake.
You are entitled to that opinion.

But many, myself included, loathed Bush and Cheney, and I took to the streets to protest the looming war, after the inspectors went back in, because I believed it reasonable to expect that international law be upheld, even it had to be made possible by the threat of force.

There was no mistake in October 2002.

There was a mistake and violation of international law when Bush advised UN inspectors had best get themselves out of peaceful and non-threatening Iraq.

286

As already noted, there were amendments offered, and voted down, that would have invested less authority in Bush as The Determinator as to when diplomatic measures were no longer useful. That is one of the mistakes of Oct 2002.

You seem to be fond of the idea that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, so where was the outrage in March 2003 from Senators like Kerry and Clinton who, according to you, voted for the AUMF just to get the inspectors back in?

In fact, look at this quote:

That doesn’t look to me like someone who voted to get the inspectors back in, but didn’t actually want to go to war.

287

“Very disappointed with {Hubris/Maddow Documentary} this. It almost could have been made “by Fox News.”” -Tony+Sinclair 02-18-2013 10:47 PM.

“They also completely ignored the report of Hans Blix, presented to the UN Security council on March 7, 2003, almost two weeks before Bush invaded. Blix said in it that every suspected WMD site, including the Presidential complexes, had been inspected, with the inspectors swooping in by helicopter without warning so that material could not be moved around, and using sophisticated ground-penetrating radar to ensure there were no hidden chambers. He said that the Iraqis, after some initial footdragging, were now cooperating not only actively, but proactively, and that there was no sign of WMD programs or stockpiles.” -Tony+Sinclair 02-18-2013 10:47 PM.
Someone else noted the prejudice against acknowledging inspections by the News Media.

288

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. -George W. Bush; Address to the Nation; March 17, 2003.
This was either an intelligence error or a lie on the night going to war was being announced.

I’ll give you one clue of many.

DCI George Tenet was awarded the Medal of Freedom by Bush after the huge mistake was known to exist.

Bush to be in compliance with international law was supposed to share all intelligence with the UN Security Council regarding what they knew or suspected with regard to Iraq’s WMD.

What did Bush have or did Bush have nothing?

289

“Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she is not sorry she voted for a resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in Iraq despite the recent problems there but she does regret ‘the way the president used the authority.’” Hillary Clinton, April 2004.

“That was 1 year after the invasion, btw.” -John+Mace 02-19-2013 09:59 AM.
Of course she did and she holds that position today. Unlike the smarmy John Edwards who apologized for his vote to suck up to the anti-war Democratic Party base.

Read her speech on the floor of the Senate before she cast her vote and you would know why. And if you don’t get it the first time. Read it again, objectively without prejudice that the vote she made was a mistake.

290

I’ve read her floor speech many times. I linked it to earlier in this thread. I’m not convinced.

Read Russ Feingold’s statement that I linked to as well. Compare and contrast. Then talk amongst yourselves.

291

Again, that is your opinion prejudiced by your view that Iraq need not be disarmed of WMD at all. Sen Clinton and Kerry both addressed the need for 'giving Bush the ‘determination authority’ which was not subject to a UN decision and did not need to come back for a second vote in Congress.

Read her speech before the vote, and in the context of her longstanding belief that Iraq needed to be brought into compliance.

Remember Bush prior to September was of the opinon that the existing Material Breaches of UN Security Council Resolutions, justified under international law that ‘member states’ such as the USA and UK could ‘enforce’ those Resolutions on their own.

HRC, because of Operation Desert Fox executed by her husband in 1998 agreed with Bush on that to some extent.

Bush did not convince HRC to go along.

HRC long believed that Iraq needed to comply with its disarmament obligations.

292

You can’t be convinced because you have decided that Iraq did not need to be disarmed or meet its obligations to the international community.

Your view is an outlier, not the prevailing view among American and world leadership at that time.

Her questions were how to go about doing it.
Her conclusion was that Bush had begun talking about seeking a new strong UN Resolution that would meet her long held position to force SH to disarm without the need for war if possible.
When you get you to say you disagree with HRC and many many lawmakers, instead of accusing them of feeble political opportunism and not voting their conscience then you may become an objectove reader of both speeches.

Clinton’s and Feingolds. They disagreed with each other.

That where you need to accept it.
And since you now have stated clearly that kicking out the inspectors in March was a mistake, made solely by Bush, and against the at least the spirit of the JAUMF (Oct2002) which is a view I clearly agree with, that means we are in agreement on one of two matters with regard to who’s fault it was for the disaster of invading Iraq.

And since you have no factual objective basis on your claim that October 2002 was also indeed a mistake, except that you hold that opinion, then it is a draw on October 2002 being a mistake.

But we have a clear cut agreement that Bush ultimately made the mistake when he decided in March 2003 to maim and kill Iraqis instead of letting the UN inspections continue as he gave his word that is what he wanted to see happen if Iraq cooperated.

293

You wanted examples of your word games?

Here it is.

Bush was set on invading Iraq and everything he did was directed to that goal. For you to make any odd assertion that I am"defending" Bush on any level at any time requires you to redefine the meaning of “defend” as well as to re-write history and to misinterpret my statements.

You do not seem to be sufficiently connected to reality for me to bother continuing to engage you.

294

As noted over and over and over again, the factual evidence is that amendments were offered, and voted down, that would have given Congress more authority in the ultimate decision to go to war.

You can choose to ignore that fact because it doesn’t fit your preconceived ideas on the subject, but that does not change whether it is a fact or not-- it is.

295

Bush defiantly asserted a right to attack Iraq, even without sanction from the Security Council. “The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security,” he said. “The United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority. It is a question of will.” - War looms as Bush issues final warning By Dana Milbank and Mike Allen March 18 2003; see link:

Bush could have kept on this path with this attitude had Congress rejected his request for use of force against Iraq om October 2002 and then he would have kept selling the war - kept hyping the threat until after the Mid-term elections and then Bush had the House and the Senate to get an invasion without bothering to try a peaceful solution through the UN Security Council.
Those who think that a vote ‘NO’ in October 2002 by Congress would have certainly prevented Bush from getting to a point where he won approval by Congress to authorize and invasion and occupation of Iraq because Iraq was in material breach of his disarmament agreement did not comprehend what HRC and Kerry said prior to their votes.
The same outcome could have occurred except that Bush would say he was invading because Iraq was in Material Breach of UN Security Council Resolutions and it was his own fault that he did not allow the inspections to be completed since 1998.

Bush would have more legitimacy to US audiences without going through the UN process as he actually did.

Saddam was more of an outlaw dictator until he allowed the inspectors back in. That should have taken Bush off his game plan. Unfortunately it didn’t.

But it is unfair and a bit arrogant to suggest that Congress made a mistak in October 2002 for the vote and attempt for peace that was made.

And which should have worked

296

I am not ignoring that fact. I have explained the logic that HRC expressed as to why she thought those amendments would not achieve what needed to be achieved with regard to a new UN Resolution.

Your “Levin” Facts are facts but they in no way shape or form translate into it being a FACT that Senator Clinton was Wrong and Senator Levin was right.
They disagreed…

297

And, as I noted earlier, Hillary echoed that view. This was not unique to Bush.

We are not saying that. What we are saying is that you offer a false dichotomy. A vote for the AUMF, as it was voted on, was the only way to get inspectors back in. It wasn’t. It was one way, but a more cautious approach should have been used, and history proves us right on that.

SH was in material breech of the UNSC resolutions. Sadly, they were written in such a way as to make compliance almost impossible.

It doesn’t matter which Congress would have voted to give him the authority to wage war with Iraq. It would have been a mistake if a Democratically controlled Congress did it or if a Republican controlled Congress did it. As it was, the control was spilt. But almost half of the Democratic Senators voted “yea”, so it’s not like Bush needed a Republican controlled Congress to go to war.

298

I have never made the point about Bush’s intentions in that regard so there is no reality from which to consider a response.
And your response makes me wonder if you do like what I said you don’t like in my statement that you referenced:

Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW - “You are defending Bush’s MARCH 2003 decision, whether you like it or not, because you don’t like his and Congress’ Ocotober 2002 decision to require Iraq to be in compliance with his disarmament agreement that was established by international law.”
Is that why you mention in advance that you intend to run from any continuation of duscussion?

299

NotfooledbyW, why exactly is it that the Levin version of the war resolution would have failed to get inspectors back into Iraq?

300

The amendment called, first, for the U.N. to pass a new resolution explicitly approving the use of force against Iraq. It also required the president to return to Congress if his U.N. efforts failed and, in Senator Levin’s words, “urge us to authorize a going-it-alone, unilateral resolution.” That resolution would allow the president to wage war as a last option.
I will let HRC Explain it:

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament,

However, this course is fraught with danger.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us.

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it.

But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act.

In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.

While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam’s compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action.