I love it!
Remember denial is always a river.
isn’t always…geez
I discussed this with a friend the other day. It is clear that when Wolfowitz links “terrorism” to Iraq it is attempting to link al qaeda with Hussein.
If I keep saying “the WTC was attacked by terrorists” and in the next sentence I say “Iraq supports terrorists”, it inexorably links the two There is no question that Bush has been desperate to link al qaeda an Iraq, to the extent that he got a special intelligence team to link the two.
You can’t possibly think that the fact that about half of Americans believe that the WTC was attacked by Iraqis is coincidence.
I second December’s suggestion for reading the transcript. This includes you too, December - youy missed a key part.
Here is the relevent section, straight from teh transcript, with no edits other than the bold tags:
Wolf cited bureaucratic reasons first, which many liberals are using against him, paused (and according to some, consulted with an aid), then gave the three reasons which the conservatives are using to support him. The former makes it look like the White House had a target and was simply looking for the crime, while the latter portrays it as a logical extension of the post 9-11 anti–terrorism campaign.
The question then is thus: Is the first quote a bit of truth that accidentally slipped out, and the second the patter to cover it up? Or did he merely mispeak the first time and correct himself the second?
Utter Bushwah!
We were sold this steaming cup of crappucino on the relentlessly repeated assertion that Iraq was a threat to us. Is anyone seriously going to try and contend that we would have assented to a war with Iraq because of our heart-rending compassion for the poor Iraqis? That is the utterest crock of shit I have ever seen posted with a straight face.
Perhaps someone should resurrect the snark-fest of time past, about how the stupid libruhls were going to be so embarrassed one day after we win in Iraq and we find the “massive stockpiles”: thousand of gallons of nuclear anthrax, stacked up to the ceiling! Scuds galore!
And now they’re trying to float a new trial balloon, about sending another team of hunters in, the real team this time, they were just kidding around before, but now they’re serious. Uh-huh. Sure. You bet. Gonna check the real sites, not the ones before, not the one’s we fed to the inspectors, but the real ones this time.
Just the cherry on top of this turd sundae.
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=030530&cat=news&st=newsiraqintelligencedc
No, this is the cherry on top of the turd sundae!
(Thanks, Hentor: couldn’t find the link.)
[scans the first sentence of elucidator’s post, decides it’s safe to ignore the rest]
Anyway, back to the issue at hand:
light strand:
No, it does nothing of the sort. First of all, we’re not done looking, and the fact that there are no WMDs now doesn’t mean they weren’t there immediately before the war. Secondly, 1441 didn’t simply forbid Saddam from possessing WMDs. It stated that he had to get rid of what we knew he had, and properly document their destruction. That last bit is a sticking point. If a cop busts me for overdue registration, I’m required to both register the car, and then report it to the PD. If I don’t do the latter, I’m still in violation of the law. Same thing with 1441.
Chew on that. 
Jeff
You’re quite safe, Jeff. All I have are facts, cites, that sort of thing. You have the Faith That Surpasseth All Understanding.
And you’re welcome to it.
I agree with you: I did hear a number of reasons for the war. Saddam has WMDs, and is therefore thumbing his nose at the UN. He’s a Bad Guy, and does Bad Things to his citizens. We need to get rid of him.
However, there are two subtleties that such a list (which could, of course, be expanded) misses entirely. The first is the timing of these reasons. I wish someone were able to construct a timeline of, say, CNN articles detailing the shifting rationale of the Administration. Because – and this is my general impression, so don’t ask me for a cite – it seems to me that we didn’t hear fuckall about Saddam’s atrocities until after the war was underway. What do I remember hearing about constantly?
I remember hearing about Weapons of Mass Destruction. Hand in hand with my first subtlety is this one: the importance given to each reason in our List of Reasons to Invade Iraq. And, let’s face it, Numero Uno, Primo Ganja, Head Cheese Super Number One Reason was that Saddam, with his WMDs, posed an immediate threat to the US. Not a threat only after locating the secretly hidden weapons. Not a threat after unearthing a bottle of anthrax from under two miles of sand dune, like a toxic genie in a bottle. An immediate, “It’s Comin’ This Way!” threat.
But you don’t have to take MY opinion of what was stressed. Straight from the horse’s mouth, The State of the Union Address:
I’ve bolded that which deals with the Immediate Threat of WMDs, italicized that which deals with Saddam’s atrocities, and underlined that which deals with ignoring the UN. Enjoy!
Quix
Great post quixotic78.
But they will deny it.
So what you’re saying Jeff is not that we started a war for WMD, or for bad-guy, or for any other reason but bad paperwork? Saddam shoulda got a better secretary. How does one document the destruction of something they claim they never had? “Jeff, I burned that 45 ft yacht in the Bay of Bengal… just in case you’re wondering. I have the paperwork, so you know it actually happened!” Vs, “What yacht, I ain’t got no yacht. Destroyed it, I ain’t got one, how could I get rid of it?” It’s no win. I forge the paperwork or deny the yachts existence either way if you’re convinced I had the yacht, but you can’t find it, I’m damned if I do, and damned if I don’t.
Anyway it was reported to the UN in 1991. I have no idea how may times I will have to post this link, but oh well.
Cool. Except, of course, that the final three paragraphs are about terrorist-supporting countries collectively (or, more narrowly construed, about the three specific countries mentioned).
So in the paragraph specifically about Iraq, he mentions supporting terror once, the threat of WMD once, the past use of WMD as a atrocity against his own people once and ignorning the UN once (once and a half, if you include “something to hide”). In that order. Yes?
Cuz I remember it differently. I recall that it was all the full list until we got conned into going to the UN. I’m certainly willing to be corrected. But the State of the Union Address certainly does nothing to alter that memory.
From his press conference on March 13, 2002
From remarks to the press (I think it was the “now watch this drive”) incident
I didn’t bother to make the non-specific “he’s a bad man” stuff in blue or anything like that.
No problem. I am astounded at that report. Here is a mainstream news source presenting a story that says that the Bush administration willfully cherry-picked information to misrepresent the case against Iraq. Not that they were simply given shoddy information, but that they were specifically selecting information to shoehorn into a predetermined framework. No, El Jeffe may not be impressed enough to read past the first line, but it seems a pretty significant step to me.
So let me see if I’ve got this right, here.
The Bushistas didn’t really make the threat of WMD’s the primary selling point of this international bitch-slapping. Or, at least, if they did, it was merely a selling point, the real issue was the liberation of the Iraqi people.
And, having acheived this primary focus, the question of the existence of any real and immediate threat to the US becomes irrelevent?
Well, you know, some guys didn’t get the memo. Time and again, when our media whores were falling all over themselves to gush over Our Troops, they would stick thier microphones in some GI’s face, and he would talk about how proud he was to be protecting his country. 'Cause that’s what he thought he was there for.
Now, where did he get that silly idea? From his Commander in Chief, mayhap?
(Hentor: well, don’t be too hard on him. Cognitive dissonance on that scale is probably pretty tough to deal with. I’m just guessing, of course, but still.)
Straight down the memory hole.
What has to happen around here before some people realize that they were lied to and acknowledge that fact. We were lied to as badly as President Johnson lied to us about the Tonkin Gulf Incident, as badly as President Nixon lied to us about the Watergate Cover-up, as badly as President Regean lied to us about the Contra Fighters and the dealings with Iran, as badly as President Clinton lied to us about what he had been doing in his spare time. You were lied to, deliberately and with intent to deceive. Don’t tell me that President Bush was lied to or received bad intelligence. He got the intelligence he wanted and when conventional intelligence would no give it to him he went looking for flimsy and unreliable intelligence that would tell him what he wanted to hear.
Wolfowitz suffered an outbreak of candor–the principal rational for the war was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was about to use them against us and our friends. This was the principal rational because it was the one the government agreed on. That means the other reasons, terrorism links, bad treatment of his own people, had their advocates within the inner circle but there was no consensus on them. Weapons of mass destruction and the presence of an imminent threat of their use was the pretext, rational, excuse, publicly declared reason for unilateral invasion without UN sanction and with the substantive support of no one but the UK. WMD were the nail we hung the war on.
To pretend otherwise at this late date is worse that disingenuous, it is dishonest.
Where is the sense of out rage among the limited government, let the market make the decisions, preserve fundamental American liberties types? Can’t you see that the honor, power and prestige of the United States, its moral standing, it claim to the respect of decent people through out the world, has been sold for a tawdry and demonstrable lie? Or, is neo-conservative really neo-imperial?
Scarily, you might be right. This could just be the beginning, if you’ll pardon me a moment of doomsaying.
But you know what? It doesn’t matter. Here’s a quick word count, from the SotU paragraphs I posted and the quotes you posted:
Danger (or dangerous): 7
Threaten (or threat): 4
Peril: 1
But it was bullshit! There was no danger, there was no threat, there was no peril. Just ghosts under the bed.
Bah, I think I’ll go join elucidator, because I’m starting to get steaming mad (at my gov’t, not at anyone here). I just hope that sheer exhaustion doesn’t win out…
Well, we ain’t much, but we’re all we’ve got.
Don’t dismiss all of these attempts to argue that we’ve been decieved by the administration as hopeless. I was personally supportive of the war in it’s early planning stages in November and December of 2002. My opinon was bolstered by Colin Powell’s presentation to the UNSC, and I have no illusions against, as others have said, that WMD’s were the nail upon which we pinned this war.
Now, I have come to have serious doubts and grave concerns about the intelligence gathering and public presentations made by the Bush Administration to the American public. I will give more time and the benefit of the doubt to the administration, but these charges of WMD must be held to bear weight. If these issues are not addressed resolved by the 2004 election, I will offer my vote to someone beyond Bush (no way I’m voting Democrat, so I don’t know who this will be).
It appears to me that this was at best, self-deception of both the Administration and the Public, or at worst, a concerted conspiracy to lie to gain public support for a war of uncertain aims.
Don’t let this die.
So the reason to go to war was really mainly that Saddam was bad to his own people?
Is this the same Bush who during the election said that the US should not be the world’s policeman but should only get involved to protect vital US interests?
One country doesn’t generally invade another over its treatment of its own people. This was fought over vital US interests. But if it wasn’t WMD and it wasn’t direct links to Al Queida, then what was it? What volatile greasy SUV powering slime was this war all about?
As much as I try to avoid pointless speculation, it seems awfully convienent that during a fairly long phone interview, Wolfowitz had to “take a call” or something immediately following his comment about “settling on WMDs as the core reason” for the invasion of Iraq. We then hear from Kevin Kellems (his Special Advisor and media consultant) for the first time. :dubious: