And so do I, albeit I approach it from the opposite direction. However, analysing current political events and juxtaposing US and UK, only leads me to conclusion that this issue is simply exploited for political advantage by opposition parties in both countries.
Perhaps I don’t, so please explain. Unless you are going to sound, “Yesterday Iraq, tomorrow who knows?” alarm.
I know that a lot of people were killed and maimed, while I remain relatively safe and cozy. It doesn’t change my opinion.
Bad guess. I think that Democrats who were stating publicly that Saddam had no WMD, should take full advantage of their prescience and claim any prize they wish (unfortunately, there are none such), Democrats that opposed the war for different reasons should continue to criticize Bush on the basis of those original reasons (without using new information that Bush invasion made available), and Democrats that supported the invasion should just shut up and find themselves a better issue to use against Bush.
I disagree. Obviously, both in US and UK, it is about WMD, it is about Iraq invasion and it is about opposition trying to score cheap shots against ruling party, so it can’t be a coincidence.
Don’t seem much of a debate going on here - you simply restate you disagree.
My take, alike to many others you have dismissed, is that connection between criticism of the Bush/Blair administrations is that I object to being misled, with government intelligence being misrepresented to the people, with press misrepresentation and repeating of same to stand uncorrected as it suits the administrations agenda etc etc.
I am truely amazed that you can write:
So you don’t mind our leaders misrepresentation on such a key issue involving thousands of deaths. Oh, of course, it is not you so you don’t seem to care.
I think that debate can continue only while there is a disagreement; as soon as agreement is reached, debate is over. Perhaps I’m missing some important distinction, please advice.
I admit, I have much greater chances to be murdered on a plane or downtown, than killed on the battlefield: that must affect my sense of priorities. Also, I hate all dictators: but that might be simply my own private psychosis. Still, what is your logic: are you saying that those who are not going to risk lives immediately shall not express views on any military conflict? That must shut me up, alond with great many people criticizing Bush and Blair right now. Is that what you are driving at? Besides, such principle being implemented, would it not give too much power to military establishment? Would it not take us all back to the days of declining Roman empire, when power was disposed in military camps?
I am all in favor of investigations on what mistakes were made and how to prevent them in future. They may assure that next time we’ll be more precise and deadly, and less messy. Employing superior military power will be necessary for many future US and UK leaders of any party. Clinton needed it in Iraq and Kosovo, Blair needed it, so did Bush, so will whoever come after. I am against those investigations used for political in-fighting, by Left or Right wing politicians. This is disgusting and extremely counterproductive.
even before the war, it appeared completely unlikely to everyone in the world besides Dick Cheney that Saddam had a viable nuclear weapons program;
even if Saddam had had bio/chem weapons, it seemed obvious that:
a) they posed no threat to us unless we invaded, and
b) there were several greater threats in the world than Saddam, including North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, and of course Al-Qaeda, especially as:
c) bio/chem weapons were much more like conventional weapons than nukes in terms of effective power to kill, wound, and wreak havoc.
The absence of bio/chem weapons, and the clear evidence that the Bushies exaggerated the threat (or, quite possibly, knew it wasn’t much of a threat from the beginning), greatly strengthens the argument I was making beforehand. Why should that evidence be disallowed? That’s absurd.
Especially damning is Rumsfeld’s war plan: in a war supposedly about the WMD threat, he cut troop levels well below the point where we could afford to secure the sites that purportedly had high likelihood of having bio/chem weapons. So our troops came across such sites, but continued on to Baghdad while leaving them unsecured. Our WMD task force would get to such sites a few days later, and find them looted to the ground.
Tell me: is such a choice indicative of an Administration that really believed in its WMD rhetoric? If WMDs had been present at these sites, they could have been anywhere in the Middle East by May, and anywhere in the world by now. And if bio/chem weapons were the dire threat to us that the Administration claimed, we’d be far more vulnerable to it now than we were a year ago.
New Iskander: How is the absence of WMD’s irrelevant? If senators and congressmen authorized the use of force based on the administrations statements of concrete knowledge of massive existing WMD stocks, deployment technology and plans to use or share those WMD’s, based on double secret evidence to which none not in the executive branch were privy (not even the appropriate legislative intelligence subcommittee members) then the absence of WMD’s is the thing, in its entirety. Being lied to in order to prevent you from concientiously carrying out your constitutional duty seems to be worth at least a little ire. (Certainly if I were a senator/congressman I would also be pissed that the North Korean nukes were kept secret by the administration until after the Iraq authorization was passed).
I think a more responsible resolution might have required a two-step process to go to war rather than the one-step Congress-washes-its-hands-of-the-whole-thing resolution that was passed.
Of course, as many Dem’s were probably persuaded by the “If you vote against this resolution we will go to war with Iraq anyways and after we win an easy victory we will label you soft on defense and terrorism just like we did last time” argument as by the “even as we speak anthrax-laden drones may be crossing the Atlantic” argument, but that is irrelevent.
Then you would be perfectly justified in saying now, “See, I told you “there were several greater threats in the world than Saddam”; now it turns out he was not a threat at all, we are commited to build up Iraq, while having to keep an eye on “North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, and of course Al-Qaeda”, and whose fault is that?” In my opinion, Saddam was some kind of threat that now ceased to be, and “North Korea, Iran, Pakistan” didn’t remain unaffected by what happened in Iraq. However, I admit your inquiry would be perfectly consistent. The next question is, then, what would you do? Invaded one of those other countries? In that case your disagreement with Bush becomes simply over tactics: he invaded Iraq, while you would invade, say, Iran. Hey, whatever, as long as some despots get good trashing, that’s OK with me.
I didn’t propose to disallow evidence, I only suggested that certain political opportunists must stop trying to advance their careers by using this issue.
Being skeptical regarding the issue of just how dangerours the WMD situation was prior to the war and then finding out that there were no WMDs at all and then stepping up the intensity of one’s complaints is not an act of hypocricy. It’s responding to the simple reality that one’s suspicions have been vindicated beyond one’s wildest dreams.
Bush has shown himself to be a howling incompetent. It is not just the right, it is the duty of the opposition party to make the most out of it that it legitimately can. The strange passivity you seem to be advocating would not be an appropriate response at all. What you are advocating is nothing short of a dereliction of duty.
And consideringing how screamingly wrong the Bush White House was, according to your standards, wouldn’t the appropriate response on their part be apology and resignation on the grounds that their credibility has been utterly and permanently invalidated? If not, what future behavior would you consider to be appropriate? I’m very anxious to see if your standards are equally stringent for both sides or if you’re just one more partisan twit holding intelligent discussion hostage to one’s unacknowledged political agenda.
My guess, however, that you are going to respond to my little challenge by talking out of your Nixon (nice turn of phrase whoever came up with that!).
New Iskander When the first President Bush asked for the first authorization to use force against Iraq prior to the first Iraq war, back in '91, a substantial number of democrats voted against it, for a variety of reasons. After the quick victory, their votes were used against them. (which is fine, although the example may have left some gun-shy on taking a stand against the 2002 authorization to use force)
Have you considered that the silence of Republicans over Bush’s lies is also partisan? I mean, these are the same guys who thought it was the utmost insult to the American people that a former president lied about having his pole shined, and now they’re OK with lies that led America to war? That’s not partisan?
“Wildest dreams” being exactly what? That Saddam is not so bad? If Bush vindicated suspicion in that respect, isn’t Bush the vindicator and deserve a commendation? No WMD and no Saddam: what’s wrong, are you missing Husseins at Iraq’s helm? Agreed, “stepping up the intensity of one’s complaints is not an act of hypocricy”. Demanding resignations is it.
Yes, let’s make a huge scandal on this one issue, ride Bush&Blair out of town on the rail and replace them with Kerry&Howard. Will it make hard decisions, involving the use of military force, easier or more difficult for Kerry&Howard or somebody else next time? We don’t know which party will be holding power then, but it is very likely there will be a “next time” we will need to use the military for overwhelming response.
They need to work on successful completion of Iraq operation, while constantly reminding other thugs, oppressing captive people around the world, that their turn might be next. Agreed, investigations are in order and opposition might be useful pushing them along.
Thank you so much for your incoherent reply. We must do this again sometime.
If you’ll go back and check all the way back to your original post, you’ll find that the subject of this thread is the supposed irony over the missing WMDs that the Bush administration absolutely insisted were there but were not. It wasn’t whether Saddam is a bad man. Outside of the furthest reaches of the loony left (i.e., ANSWER), I don’t know anybody who disagrees with the majority on that — at least in this country.
Is it not ironic that Iskander is trying to change the subject?
If memory serves, my original intention was to point out the irony that missing WMD in Iraq are used for political advantage by Left opposition against the ruling Right in US and by Right opposition against the ruling Left in UK. From that contradiction I derived a conclusion, that no principal issues are really involved here and the whole fracas is strictly political sniping, which I think is first, disgusting and second, potentially damaging to the power of future US and UK leaders (were they Right, Left, Green, Gay Communists or whoever else) to exercise the military options in the outside world. I think the latter is especially important.
That was the line I was trying to follow; I don’t understand your charge that I was trying to change my own subject. Few people commented on the subject proper and their comments did help me to adjust my views. It is true that while US Democrats are abusing the WMD issue mostly for political gains, Republicans are doing nothing about it also for political reasons. It is equally true that Republicans were not too patriotic to avoid taking cheap shots at Clinton, immediately connecting his bombing of Al Qaida camps with Lewinsky affair, instead of considering such possible causes as US embassies and USS Cole bombings. If Democrats can’t forgive WMD to Bush, Republicans can’t forgive aspirin factory to Clinton. In the final analysis, opposition party is doing too much and ruling party is doing too little; which just might be the way US political system works always; perhaps the spectacle is not really disgusting, but I simply need a stronger stomach to stand it.
Most responses were old comments on how evil or stupid is Bush and how I am defending him, that is irrelevant. You made some good points in your first post but then decided to finish it on an abusive note, for some reason.
