US Changes Reasons for invading Iraq after the fact. Anyone surprised?

This will descent to the pit soon, especially if December and Reeder show up… though what an interesting fight that would be…

Anyway…

From Today’s Globe and Mail - Canada’s real National Newspaper appears a great story quoting Mr Rumsfeld. It appears the Bush administration takes your populace for fools.

Don’t worry that it is not an official statement from the administration though.

Anyone surprised? Anyone STILL want to re-elect him in 04? Anyone think he deserves to be impeached and booted from office?

He blatantly lied about his reasons for going to war, and is banking on the public having a short memory. He got innocent people as well as his own soldiers killed to satisfy his bloodlust. When will it end?

Er, does Canada also have a fake national newspaper? Just wondering about that tag line.

As Ari Fleischer might say, “asked and answered” (probably hundreds of time in these forums). But thanks for bringing this issue to our attention. We’ll be sure to alert you when we’ve dealt with it.

CuriousCanuck, the Globe and Mail has included an editorial right inside their news article. The article reports as fact that “The U.S. administration has abruptly revised its explanation for invading Iraq…” and “It was an about-face.” This is really their opinion, not a fact. And, their opinion is wrong.

E.g., consider Rumsfeld’s comment

That’s not a reversal in position regarding evidence of WMDs. Nobody ever claimed that there was dramatic new evidence of Iraq’s pursuit of WMD’s. There was plenty of old evidence that Iraq had been pursuing WMDs. That’s why the UN has resolution after resolution. The difference, as Rumsfeld correctly pointed out, is that after 9/11 it seemed more urgent to go beyond mere words in dealing with Iraq’s pursuit of WMDs.

Personally, I’m not going to make any decisions about whether or not I’ll vote for Bush until I see who the Dems put forth. I also want to see if there will be any serious third-party candidates.

Well, The National Post shouldn’t count… :slight_smile:

I would hope that it would be dealt with. But your administration seems to be teflon coated, hiding behind patriotism, spewing propaganda, and getting away with murder. Do it in the name of the flag and your lady with a torch, and it becomes immoral to voice dissent. Anyway… that is neither here nor there.

The issue is that yet again the White House has changed its tune, and it is about time that something was done about it.

Wrong. In February, according to the White House, and GwB there was a clear an immediate threat to the world due to existing weapons and startling new evidence that they could be used at any time. As far as your comment about there being an editorial in the article, I respectfully disagree. If the Government gives the reason of “clear and present danger due to WMDs” as a justification for war, and then after the war revises their statements to say “what we really meant was this, and stop trying to rewrite history”, then I would call that a revised explanation. If you change your jsutification, then reporting it as changed IS fact.

So you saying they lied to us?

Say it ain’t so!

BTW Bush will be pres in 2004, but don’t blame me.

Sure, but the US government didn’t do this. In fact, the US government gave as its reason Iraq’s pursuit of WMDs, combined with Saddam’s evilness, over and over again.

BTW there’s a big difference of opinion about whether military action against Iraq could be justified only by an imminent threat against the US. It’s a kind of burden of proof question. My view is that the burden of proof was on Iraq to demonstrate that they were not a threat to the US or other countries. That’s what US Security Council Resolution #1441 said.

Many of us see that position as common sense. In the light of 9/11, it’s just too risky to give Iraq a presumption of innocence.

So, um, they find those threatening WMD yet?

Hows that going? Find any new “moonshine trucks” lately?

Ah, december, your apologies for this administration descend into Freudian farce. US Security Council, indeed!

And that, my fine conservative friend, almost perfectly sums up why we are now staring in to the very maw of hell. Little by little, we seem to be willing to discard our most dearly held beliefs (things like the presumption of innocence, due process, freedom) for the illusion of safety.

Don’t you people see that buying in to the bullshit here is every bit as much of a risk to our way of life as the boogiemen that we are so afraid of?

Of course he’ll be president in 2004 – whether or not he’ll be president in 2005 is up for debate.

To further pick a nit, Bush will be president for the first 19 1/2 days of 2005, beyond that is anyone’s guess.

Back to the OP, 9/11 isn’t a legitimate excuse for waging war willy-nilly. Just because you’re say you were looking “through the prism of 9/11” doesn’t cut it with me. Bush and Co. should just come clean and say “we goofed” and let’s go on from there.

Yeah, wouldn’t it be nice if politicians said, “Ooops! Fucked up on THAT one!” now and then? People would resent them a lot less if they’d just admitted they screwed up, especially when it became intuitively obvious to the casual observer that they had.

Didn’t vote for Bush the first time. Won’t vote for Bush in '04. And I don’t agree with the war in Iraq.

That being said, I don’t think that the statement above is necessarily a reversal of position, a change of reason, or anything of the sort. I knew this was all about 9/11 before this, and I would guess that most of the country did as well. Hearing Rumsfeld say that basically struck a resounding “duh!” in my head. And, incidentally, when you’re paranoid as hell because someone recently attacked the country you’re in charge of and you can’t find the guy who did it, even the most innocuous stuff can look like startling new evidence. Hindsight, however, is 20/20; they might realize now that there was nothing new. Maybe not then.

Also, Bush and Co. are not going to just say “we goofed.” Since when has the government ever just gone “we done fucked up,” come clean, and gotten on with business? It isn’t going to happen. They’re politicians, for chrissake; you think they’re going to tell the truth? You have to put everything through a BS filter, no matter who’s in charge. That’s why we have brains.

Alright 2005/2006, we’re still fucked.

I don’t know about using the term “goofed”. I have little doubt that it was a deliberate deception, not a simple mistake.

And how would that work? I’d like december to prove that he is not a secret pie eater. He can demonstrate this by showing us the pies he hasn’t got.

Your explanation makes no sense. Iraq was in the process of demonstrating a complete lack of WMD to the UN, until Bush got impatient with the process because it wasn’t coming up with the only answer he wanted to hear; i.e. a reason for invading.

What did you expect Iraq to do? Show them the pies they haven’t got quicker?

Oh yes, of course, all those Iraqis involved in the WTC attacks and such. :rolleyes:

Bush & Co. lied - plain, flat out lied. They said that Saddam had WMD, that they knew he had them, and led many to believe that they knew exactly where he had them. And they convinced many that the “imminent danger” he supposedly represented was enough to go kill people. Because he could attack us tomorrow. And now that they’ve occupied the country, and have gone to many of the places where they just knew he had his weapons, they’ve found nothing. Absolutely nothing. The most promising thing they’ve found recently are some centrifuge parts that are 12 years old. Yet this is supposed to convince us. That and remarks like, “I’m convinced they will be found” or “Getting rid of Saddam was the only reason we went.” That’s also a lie, and he fucking knows it. Call me cynical, but I’m unsurprised.

Revisionist history? Absolutely. I just don’t buy that it’s the Democrats doing the revising.

So having reacter parts buried in somebodies backyard constitutes an active nuclear program? My dog buries stuff, i’m sure she’d be surprised to learn she is involved in an active nuclear program as well…