Downing Street Memo

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Arles

OK, I'm trying to take a step back and look at the situation in its entirety. There was a great deal of intelligence gathered from the mid 90s to 2002 on Saddam. And I have no doubt that, years after knowing the outcome on WMD, some people could find information that questionned it. That isn't really being argued here. The heart of the argument is did Bush purposefully modify/hide intelligence to avoid people finding out about it and not wanting to go to war. And this is what I take exception to.

The scenerio you guys are basically proposing is that Bush, after seeing (just the main bits):

1. All the satellite images, accounts and data that Powell presented to the UN
2. Getting the info from the UN on unaccounted weapons and WMD material with no confirmation from the inspectors on it being disposed of or where they were even being stored.
3. Handed bundles of intelligence from the Clinton term that was compelling enough for Bill to bomb Iraq stating they were going after nuclear capabilities and had WMD.
4. Straight CIA data that was compelling enough to have senate intelligence members like Joe Biden say, unequivically, that Saddam possessed WMD both BEFORE and during the Bush administration.
5. Being told by the director of the CIA that the case was a "slam dunk" for Saddam possessing WMD.

After all this, Bush found a couple outlying memos and found that a few CIA agents that he hadn't even talked to might be against the WMD argument, so he frantically started to hide and burn dissenting materials because he really thought if people found a memo or heard from a CIA guy that the entire case would have been discredited? And, Bush knew that the WMD information was shaky but that he needed this war to stay in office?

Not only would the info people have found now after years of piling through old data not have made a hill of beans difference, but you guys are taking this information in a vaccum and completely ignoring the info that we now question - but was viewed as completely legit by the CIA, congress (and much of the world) back in 2002. A better claim would not be that Bush purposefully hid or deceived the public, but that, given info 1-5 listed above, he simply felt the other pieces of information (that have suddenly taken on more credibility now that we know the outcome) were not compelling enough to change his opinion. Plus, we know that much of this information found now wasn't given much credence by George Tenet or FBI head Muller when the president was briefed.

Again, if you guys want to believe that there was some "hidden gem" of information readily available back in 2001 and 2002 that would have changed everyone's mind on Iraq or should have made a compelling case to Bush not to go to war - go right ahead. But you guys are doing exactly what you are accussing Bush of doing back in 2002 in searching only for bits of information that may help your case while completely ignoring the elephant in the room that was the massive US, UN and world intelligence that implicated Saddam possessing WMD. Bush, the US and much of the world were wrong on the claim Saddam possessed WMD, but that doesn't mean there was massive deceit involved in convincing others. That's the leap that you guys seem more than willing to make and I do not.

Your description is entirely a strawman - no one is arguing that. My account differs slightly from others, but this is what I believe:

Bush wanted to finish the job in Iraq that his Dad didn't because he say tremendous opportunities to squeeze the Middle East oil suppliers if we had a non-OPEC ally there. That would be the first step to a U.S.-friendly Middle East. This was a goal from day one of this administration because it is essentially the neo-con plan as has been spelled out in various publications at the time.

9/11 comes a long and provides a perfect excuse.

Bush and the administration order intelligence agencies to accumulate data favorable to their cause and they then cherry pick the info further. THIS IS INCREDIBLY EASY TO DO. No conspiracy is required. Go read just the public foreign policy journals pre-9/11 and you can find outliers who believe all sorts of theories. However, at the time, most academics and policy groups did not believe Saddam presented ANY IMMEDIATE THREAT. Only the fringe really believed otherwise. In fact, most of the Iraq literature was focused on the effect sanctions were having on the population and there was a growing consensus that sanctions should actually be lifted. On that fringe, however, the administration built its case and the rest is history.

Now, why is that so hard to believe?

[JPhillips]

Arles: Without getting myself completely back in this.

1) We relied almost exclusively on a source that had been discredited by State and the CIA during Clinton. When Bush came in CHalabi and Curveball suddenly were seen as always right and their allegations were never corroborated or challenged.

2) Rumsfeld and Cheney created the Office of Special Plans. The sole purpose of the OSP was to reinterpret intelligence about Iraq because the CIA and State were not being aggressive enough intheir interpretations.

3) You have to separate chem/bio weapons from nuclear weapons if you want to be honest. The WMD threat that everyone believed was from chem/bio. The nuclear case that the Admin sold went way past the evidence and there are at least two examples where the admin did disregard warnings that wat they were saying wasn't proven. (Aluminum tubes, yellowcake)

4) Statements such as Card's "from a marketing viewpoint, you don't introduce a new product in August." or Wolfowitz's that WMD was settled on to sell the war.

5) Statements that went well beyond any evidence that any Clinton or Bush official such as Rumsfeld saying he knew exactly where the WMD were.

6) The clear fact that we made no effort to guard any WMD facilities. And remember, Rumsfeld said we knew exactly where they were.

Did the admin fabricate everything, of course not. Did they stretch the truth and do everything in their power to sell this war to the public, of course.

For me the real problem here is that the policy drove the facts. We were going to go to war no matter what and the job of the facts was to help sell the policy. I don't believe for a second that anything collected after 9/1 mattered. The decision was already made.

I'll also be clear that I don't think there will ever be a smoking gun on intelligence, but the real issue of the DSM is that Bush & Co. repeatedly lied to Congress and to the public when they said they were reluctant to go to war or that war was the last option.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Your description is entirely a strawman - no one is arguing that. My account differs slightly from others, but this is what I believe:

I think some here do believe that, but I will gladly look at your scenerio (which is much more plausible).

Bush wanted to finish the job in Iraq that his Dad didn't because he say tremendous opportunities to squeeze the Middle East oil suppliers if we had a non-OPEC ally there. That would be the first step to a U.S.-friendly Middle East. This was a goal from day one of this administration because it is essentially the neo-con plan as has been spelled out in various publications at the time.

I can see everything but the final sentence - I don't know that Bush was planning to invade Iraq the moment he was sworn in. I certainly think that given what Clinton had found out in the late 90s, dealing with Iraq was something that any administration (be it Gore or Bush) would have had to do in some capacity.

9/11 comes a long and provides a perfect excuse.

Bush and the administration order intelligence agencies to accumulate data favorable to their cause and they then cherry pick the info further. THIS IS INCREDIBLY EASY TO DO. No conspiracy is required.

I am following you to this point. There was such a large amount of data in support of the theory that Saddam had WMD, that I agree this was fairly easy to do.

Go read just the public foreign policy journals pre-9/11 and you can find outliers who believe all sorts of theories. However, at the time, most academics and policy groups did not believe Saddam presented ANY IMMEDIATE THREAT.

There is a difference between possessing WMD and being an immediate threat. Saddam could have possessed WMD and not been an immediate threat to the US. He would certainly have been an emerging threat, but I don't think even if Saddam possessed WMD that he was an "immediate threat". And, I don't think Saddam needed to be an immediate threat for the US to remove him from power.

Only the fringe really believed otherwise. In fact, most of the Iraq literature was focused on the effect sanctions were having on the population and there was a growing consensus that sanctions should actually be lifted. On that fringe, however, the administration built its case and the rest is history.

Now, why is that so hard to believe?

I am not sure where we differ in your above comments outside of the fact that you felt Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq the moment he was sworn in. Again, just because Bush decided to focus more on the mountain of information supporting Saddam possessing WMD and less on the significantly less supporting the opposite DOES NOT mean that Bush was lying to the American people. At some point, Bush had to look at the situation in its entirety and see if the info provided (much of which I listed in 1-5 before) was enough to warrant a war with Iraq. And, I think that a fair-minded person would have looked the entire picture involving Iraq and WMD and come to the conclusion that Saddam did probably possess them and a war would be needed to remove them. Now, two years later that may end up being the incorrect assessment, but that does mean it was reached originally through deceit and misinformation by the White House. As Powell, UN, Clinton and numerous others displayed, there was plenty of completely legitimate information available back in 2001-2002 to lead Bush to believe that war was the best way to deal with Saddam and his potential WMD capabilities.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

I am not sure where we differ in your above comments outside of the fact that you felt Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq the moment he was sworn in. Again, just because Bush decided to focus more on the mountain of information supporting Saddam possessing WMD and less on the significantly less supporting the opposite DOES NOT mean that Bush was lying to the American people.

..but then I start to question the obvious lies, which we already went around about (Cheney's statement during the debate, etc.)

[JPhillips]

As Powell, UN, Clinton and numerous others displayed, there was plenty of completely legitimate information available back in 2001-2002 to lead Bush to believe that war was the best way to deal with Saddam and his potential WMD capabilities.

Yes, but that's not what we were told. I could have supported this war, but instead of telling us the truth the admin decided to punch it up and make it more appealing. They decided to tell us that they were reluctant to go to war when they clearly were not. And the refusal of the admin to level with us continues as Cheney reaches up his ass and pulls out "the insurgency is in its last throes."

I believe that this failure to lay out the complete truth is what is eroding support for finishing the job. We keep being told that things are wonderful, but they clearly are not. At what point do supporters of Bush decide that solving the problem in Iraq is more important than supporting Bush?

[st.cronin]

This is something I had not seen posited anywhere til this thread the last few days, that Bush had Iraq in his sites back in 2000. I thought the CW was that Bush was essentially an isolationist, unwilling to risk american soldiers for anything at all. Then 9/11 happened, and Wolfowitz et al. gained in influence, and Powell declined.

I seriously had not seen the argument anywhere that Bush wanted to invade Iraq pre-9/11. I think had there been a bloodless way to take out Hussein, he would have taken it, but heck, so would Howard Dean or even Ralph Nader.

[CentralMassHokie]

I've stayed out of this, the Clark(e)s, Gen. Wesley and Richard have both talked about the pre 9-11 days of the Bush Administration when they were taking assets (spy planes, predators, etc.) and intelligence out of Afghanistan and putting them into Iraq. That's pretty much never been denied and is talked about in the "Bush at War" lovefest that Woodward wrote.

I don't think there is any doubt that the Bush Admin thought Iraq and Hussein were the biggest threat.

[st.cronin]

Thinking that Iraq and Hussein were a (big) threat is completely appropriate and unsurprising. That's not what I'm protesting, though - I'm disputing the notion that Bush was itching for a fight with Iraq from day 1 of his administration.

[CentralMassHokie]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Thinking that Iraq and Hussein were a (big) threat is completely appropriate and unsurprising. That's not what I'm protesting, though - I'm disputing the notion that Bush was itching for a fight with Iraq from day 1 of his administration.

I think it is very possible to quibble with thinking that Iraq/Hussein were a bigger threat than bin Laden/al Qaeda. That certainly wasn't the thinking in the academic or intelligence community.

[JPhillips]

St. Cronin: There are a number of points that show Bush was merely aiting for the right time to attack Iraq.

1) Paul O'Neill has said that Iraq was a priority in early 2001

2) Wolfowitz, Pearl and I believe Rumsfeld all pushed for attacking Iraq while Clinton was in office

3) Bush clearly and repeatedly stated that regime change was the policy of the administration

4) On 9/11 accounts have the President and others pushing for an attack against Iraq

Let me be clear that I believe there was a good case to go to war in Iraq and that for me those facts didn't change much with 9/11. I'm mostly fine with the decision, but I still think it was wrong to tell the public that there was reluctance to go to war when there clearly was not.

[st.cronin]

Ok, I don't disagree with all that but I think what is being argued here is that without 9/11 Bush would have eventually invaded Iraq for some other reason. I don't think that is true, and it is an argument I had not heard before.

[JPhillips]

Whether he could have gotten support for it is debatable, but given that many of the main DOD players were arguing for invasion during the 90s I don't think there is much doubt that the desire was there.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by CentralMassHokie

I think it is very possible to quibble with thinking that Iraq/Hussein were a bigger threat than bin Laden/al Qaeda. That certainly wasn't the thinking in the academic or intelligence community.

Clinton certainly felt Saddam was a bigger threat than Bin Laden in the late 90s. That was the conventional wisdom in the CIA as well prior to 9/11 (if you believe Tenet, Clinton and his administration).

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

St. Cronin: There are a number of points that show Bush was merely aiting for the right time to attack Iraq.

1) Paul O'Neill has said that Iraq was a priority in early 2001

Iraq was a priority from 1995 to 2001 by both administrations.

2) Wolfowitz, Pearl and I believe Rumsfeld all pushed for attacking Iraq while Clinton was in office

As did numerous others, including some on Clinton's staff. In fact, he ended up bombing Iraq in 1998 citing both a nuclear program by Saddam and WMD.

3) Bush clearly and repeatedly stated that regime change was the policy of the administration

Clinton changed the US policy to be one of regime change in Iraq on Oct. 31, 1998. Bush simply continued that policy:

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colld...ast/libera.htm

4) On 9/11 accounts have the President and others pushing for an attack against Iraq

Given the intel provided by Clinton and the climate around Iraq from 1998 to 2001, it make sense for Bush to initially feel Saddam was involved. Heck, that was my first inclination as well. But, once the administration had a chance to take inventory of what we knew, their initial policy was unquestionably tailored to face Al-Qaeda and Afghanistan.

[JPhillips]

Arles: I won't argue with any of that except the last point. All I was trying to point out was that using military means to oust Saddam was not something that suddenly popped up in 2002. I don't think that can even be dabeted.

As to your last point, no. Iraq was most certainly not where Bush should have initially looked. Al Queada was a known threat, they had previously attacked the WTC, we had credible intelligence that they were gearing for another attack, all of the career guys were saying its Al Quaeda, and every credible analysis said there was no connection between Iraq and Al Queada.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Arles: I won't argue with any of that except the last point. All I was trying to point out was that using military means to oust Saddam was not something that suddenly popped up in 2002. I don't think that can even be dabeted.

Clinton had already used military means against Iraq by late 1998 and there were many rumblings that Saddam may need to be moved by force as early as 1999.

As to your last point, no. Iraq was most certainly not where Bush should have initially looked. Al Queada was a known threat, they had previously attacked the WTC, we had credible intelligence that they were gearing for another attack, all of the career guys were saying its Al Quaeda, and every credible analysis said there was no connection between Iraq and Al Queada.

Look at the actions of both Al Qaeda and Iraq (specifically with the international community) from 1996 to 2001. The information we have in that time frame make Iraq a much bigger threat at first glance. All I was referring to was the day it happened. My first response wasn't "I bet that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda did this", it was "this might be Saddam's way at getting back us for bombing him in 1998".

Now, as we got more info, Al-Qaeda started to take front and center. But, on 9/11, it certainly made a lot fo sense for many to assume Saddam was behind this.

[JPhillips]

Arles: No offence, but I would hope that the White House and associated government employees were a little bit more informed than you. All of the signs pointed to Al Queada.

It may have made sense for you to think it was Iraq, but it is inconcievable that given the information and advice the White House recieved that they could have seen Iraq as the most likely culprit.

[MrBigglesworth]

Why did we go to war? Here is the resolution of the US Congress:

JOINT RESOLUTION:

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'; Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Pretty much the only reason that is still valid is:

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population ... by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq ... and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait

I'm not so sure that that is enough to fight a war over. Arles would have you believe that it is all just a big misunderstanding, that the head of MI6 saw that the intelligence was being fixed but didn't tell Bush, that the British knew more about our own intelligence than we did. That doesn't seem right to me, either. So why did we go to war? Everyone has their own pet theories, which shows what a big problem it is. It's stupid that we have to ask that question.

[Flasch186]

...especially considering that this is the SECOND time Al Qaeda hit. What was their first target? I can't seem to remember.


edit: Forgot to mention that they also hit a floating thing in the mideast too. Damn they are mean folks, we should probably capture that tall one of them.

[Arles]

I think it depends on the timeframe. If it was the day of 9/11 or the next few days (before the White House assembled all the info) then I could see Bush and others being concerned about Saddam - that's all I was saying. There have been many references to Bush talking about Saddam on the day of and after the attack and my contention is that is perfectly reasonable. Now, if he was more worried about Saddam a month after 9/11 - then that would be different. But their actions (and most accounts) show that Al Qaeda was the main focus by then.

[st.cronin]

It puzzles me that Bush has been a disastrous leader in terms of domestic policy, and a brilliant leader in terms of his foreign policy, yet all the opposition party talks about is 'Iraq, Iraq, Iraq.'

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Why did we go to war?

I think Brutal repression and executions and mass killings IS enough to go to war over if we have the power to put an end to it....we should at least try.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

It puzzles me that Bush has been a disastrous leader in terms of domestic policy, and a brilliant leader in terms of his foreign policy, yet all the opposition party talks about is 'Iraq, Iraq, Iraq.'

this month, for a long time it was jobs....it changes.

[JPhillips]

Arles: This isn't going to get us anywhere. If the accounts of Bush pushing for an attack on Iraq on 9/11 are true than something is seriously fucked up. We had reports of Al Queada planning a major attack, Al Queada had previously attacked the WTC, the suicide bombing was a hallmark of Al Queada and had never been used by Saddam, all of the career officials were saying this is Al Queada, our allies were saying this is Al Queada, Bush had been warned that Al Queada was our major threat, there was no intelligence intercepts or movements in Iraq that remotely suggested involvment by Saddam.

No. There is no way that Bush should have pointed to Iraq by the time he met with the national security folks.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

this month, for a long time it was jobs....it changes.

Not really ... granted, living in Madison can be a little disorienting, but I can't remember the last time the local paper went two days in a row without some story on Iraq getting significant, if not front page, coverage. The criticism of Bush on other matters has been extremely muted.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I think Brutal repression and executions and mass killings IS enough to go to war over if we have the power to put an end to it....we should at least try.

Well there are a dozen or so countries that we could go to war with if those are the only criteria. Is that what we want to do? And is that feasible in a time when there is a real and immediate threat from an enemy out there? Clearly, we are not interested in the moral high ground anymore, so I find I would find it highly ironic that Bush wanted to go to war for humanitarian reasons.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Not really ... granted, living in Madison can be a little disorienting, but I can't remember the last time the local paper went two days in a row without some story on Iraq getting significant, if not front page, coverage. The criticism of Bush on other matters has been extremely muted.

Its a war...probably deserves to be in a the paper a lot. I'd think.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Well there are a dozen or so countries that we could go to war with if those are the only criteria. Is that what we want to do? And is that feasible in a time when there is a real and immediate threat from an enemy out there? Clearly, we are not interested in the moral high ground anymore, so I find I would find it highly ironic that Bush wanted to go to war for humanitarian reasons.

Well thats enough for me, if there is genocide, than yup we (and the UN w/ NATO) should be there by the end of the week. World's police.....Us Jewish folk thank you.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

It puzzles me that Bush has been a disastrous leader in terms of domestic policy, and a brilliant leader in terms of his foreign policy, yet all the opposition party talks about is 'Iraq, Iraq, Iraq.'

The opposition party successfully derailed the SS privatization, so that's not all they are focusing on. I think your problem lies with the media, because wars and missing white women sell papers and draw viewers, not terrible economic policy.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Well thats enough for me, if there is genocide, than yup we (and the UN w/ NATO) should be there by the end of the week. World's police.....Us Jewish folk thank you.

Firstly, I don't believe there was genocide in Iraq. Saddam was an a-hole, to be sure, but I recently saw a study that concluded that more Iraqi's are dying now because of the war than were dying under Saddam.

But if genocide is why we went to war, why are we not doing anything about Sudan? I understand if genocide is enough for YOU to go to war, but I am wondering why WE went to war. What was the goal of the administration?

[CentralMassHokie]

Originally Posted by Arles

Clinton certainly felt Saddam was a bigger threat than Bin Laden in the late 90s. That was the conventional wisdom in the CIA as well prior to 9/11 (if you believe Tenet, Clinton and his administration).

And then, when leaving office, Clinton, his NSA, and numerous other people met with the incoming administration to let them know that they felt bin Laden would be their biggest problem.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/101703A.shtml

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Firstly, I don't believe there was genocide in Iraq. Saddam was an a-hole, to be sure, but I recently saw a study that concluded that more Iraqi's are dying now because of the war than were dying under Saddam.

But if genocide is why we went to war, why are we not doing anything about Sudan? I understand if genocide is enough for YOU to go to war, but I am wondering why WE went to war. What was the goal of the administration?

he gassed the Kurds because they were Kurdish. He cracked down on the Shi-ites because they we're Shi-ites when Bush I pulled back. That's Genocide in my book, see ya.

Sudan...well, we should be going there too. Hi, Im Flasch186. Have we met?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Ok, I don't disagree with all that but I think what is being argued here is that without 9/11 Bush would have eventually invaded Iraq for some other reason. I don't think that is true, and it is an argument I had not heard before.

I really think that dealing with Iraq was high on the Admin's agenda from day one, or actually before day one. He campaigned on regime change in Iraq.

I don't believe that the invasion of Iraq is at all tied to the events of 9/11. I view them as wholly separate issues. I do believe that in the wake of 9/11 terrorism was a huge issue, and the Admin did use the spectre of a rogue state potentially cooperating with terrorists as part of their case for war. It wasn't so much that the admin was saying that they, Iraq and terrorists, were "proven allies", but more of a case of a potential "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" situation arising.

I don't think that anyone can definitively state that the Bush administration felt that Iraq was a bigger threat than Islamic Terroists. I just don't believe there is evidence to support such a claim. I do believe the fact that we chose to invade Iraq, when we hadn't finished cleaning up the situation in Afghanistan, shows that regime change in Iraq was too high of a priority in the Whitehouse. I just don't think you can definitively declare that the priority was attributed to any "threat" factor.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

he gassed the Kurds because they were Kurdish. He cracked down on the Shi-ites because they we're Shi-ites when Bush I pulled back. That's Genocide in my book, see ya.

Sudan...well, we should be going there too. Hi, Im Flasch186. Have we met?

So do you think Bush went to war NOW because of a genocide that occured a decade before? But then would clearly sit by as one happens today? I don't find that plausible. That may be a reason for you to support the Iraq war, bud I don't think that was the real reason of the Bush administration.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by CentralMassHokie

And then, when leaving office, Clinton, his NSA, and numerous other people met with the incoming administration to let them know that they felt bin Laden would be their biggest problem.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/101703A.shtml

Hey, if Clinton said it two years after he left office, it must be true then. I'm sure Bin laden was a person of majr concern, but Clinton had changed the US policy against Iraq to be that of regime change and sent out military bombing missions to Iraq because of Saddam's "nuclear and weapons programs" less than two years before he left office.

Clinton's words two years after 9/11 may say Usama was his main concern, but his actions point much more directly to Iraq - that is unless he also stated somewhere he wanted regime change in Afghanistan or spoke on national TV about missions to eliminate Al Qaeda. I guess I missed both of those actions by Clinton.

[Flasch186]

Yes, if a leader commits Genocide I dont believe the statute of limitations runs out. Im for the war, glad he's gone, but my skin is rubbed raw because I feel the admin. lied to me.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Yes, if a leader commits Genocide I dont believe the statute of limitations runs out. Im for the war, glad he's gone, but my skin is rubbed raw because I feel the admin. lied to me.

But they didn't.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Arles

Hey, if Clinton said it two years after he left office, it must be true then. I'm sure Bin laden was a person of majr concern, but Clinton had changed the US policy against Iraq to be that of regime change and sent out military bombing missions to Iraq because of Saddam's "nuclear and weapons programs" less than two years before he left office.

Clinton's words two years after 9/11 may say Usama was his main concern, but his actions point much more directly to Iraq - that is unless he also stated somewhere he wanted regime change in Afghanistan or spoke on national TV about missions to eliminate Al Qaeda. I guess I missed both of those actions by Clinton.

To be fair, Clinton bombed an abandoned camp in Afghanistan and a Pharmacy in Africa in the name of ridding the world of Bin Laden.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

But they didn't.

i know Im glad we got him out of there...I just wish that W wouldve spoke honestly about why we were going.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

To be fair, Clinton bombed an abandoned camp in Afghanistan and a Pharmacy in Africa in the name of ridding the world of Bin Laden.

...and did his very best to stop Genocide in Bosnia with Worldwide support.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

...and did his very best to stop Genocide in Bosnia with Worldwide support.

But wouldn't help Rwanda without world-wide support.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think it depends on the timeframe. If it was the day of 9/11 or the next few days (before the White House assembled all the info) then I could see Bush and others being concerned about Saddam - that's all I was saying. There have been many references to Bush talking about Saddam on the day of and after the attack and my contention is that is perfectly reasonable. Now, if he was more worried about Saddam a month after 9/11 - then that would be different. But their actions (and most accounts) show that Al Qaeda was the main focus by then.

My Wife asked in the minutes after we learned the news "Who would do this?". I answered "Osama Bin Laden and AlZawahiri(sp?)" I was pretty sure, and I'm damn sure that everyone who was anyone in Washington Intelligence had a pretty good idea who it was. I think the president knew it was almost a certainty that AlQaeda was behind the attack. I think too much is being made about his request in the day/days following to see if Iraq had played any sort of a role in the attack. It makes a little bit of sense to actually verify which enemy attacked you.

So I think it is really a bit of a reach to say that Bush had a legitimate reason to believe that it was Iraq instead of AlQaeda who was behind the attacks. AlQaeda was absolutely the leading suspect, I just don't think it was all that big of a deal to want to confirm that it wasn't Public Enemy #2 or #3.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

...and did his very best to stop Genocide in Bosnia with Worldwide support.

Don't forget his abandonment of Somalia.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Dutch

But they didn't.

This I agree with too. W may have championed WMD as the big reason to go to war, but the other reasons were touted as well. MrGiggles post showing the resolution for war lists plenty of valid reasons to remove Saddam from power.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Now, I do give up. Arles is truly in denial. It's become clear that he accepts all favorable evidence as true, and casts aside all unfavorable evidence as false or speculation. The best point made here is that if the Brits THOUGHT info fixing or massaging was going on, the Administration KNEW it was going on. Again, I learned to smell a rat a long time ago. Arles is operating in the realm of "plausible deniability," which keeps you of jail, but doesn't stop people from figuring out what really happened. Arles, I am not going to engage you in the task you have asked us to do which is to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the fix was in. Won't do it. Can't do. Don't have to do it.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Don't forget his abandonment of Somalia.

....and Im not in favor of that either. This isnt a pro-clinton thread for me its a thread for me to say, "that YES Im glad saddam is gone but PLEASE dont lie to me to get me there. Be honest with me and Ill most likely support you if you're doing what's right." Im very consistent....ALL places where genocide occurs are subject to having the most powerful nations in the world, with righteousness on their side (and I do mean righteousness when it comes to stopping Genocide), come into your country and do whatever is necessary to save lives, generations, and a people. Period. For me, thats enough.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

....and Im not in favor of that either. This isnt a pro-clinton thread for me its a thread for me to say, "that YES Im glad saddam is gone but PLEASE dont lie to me to get me there. Be honest with me and Ill most likely support you if you're doing what's right." Im very consistent....ALL places where genocide occurs are subject to having the most powerful nations in the world, with righteousness on their side (and I do mean righteousness when it comes to stopping Genocide), come into your country and do whatever is necessary to save lives, generations, and a people. Period. For me, thats enough.

Bush didn't lie.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

This I agree with too. W may have championed WMD as the big reason to go to war, but the other reasons were touted as well. MrGiggles post showing the resolution for war lists plenty of valid reasons to remove Saddam from power.

But Blenboyne, of that resolution I posted only one paragraph of it was true. Attacking their neighbors with nuclear weapons is a very good reason to go to war in general, but a very bad reason if you put it into a resolution against France.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Bush didn't lie.

Originally Posted by Bush, Oct. 7, 2002

The Iraqi regime possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons.

Originally Posted by VP Dick Cheney, Aug. 26, 2002

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Originally Posted by Bush, March 17, 2003

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.

Originally Posted by Ari Fleischer, Jan. 9, 2003

We know for a fact there are weapons there.

In the most basic definition of the word, there is no question that Bush and others in his administration lied. You may wish to parse words further, and say that they didn't really know they were lying (which still puts into question the competence of the administration, but I digress). However, the head of intelligence at our biggest ally believed (and reported to the head of state) that they were lying with intent to deceive, and believed that they were lying with intent to deceive at the time everything was going on, before anyone knew for sure whether there were WMD's in Iraq or not.

There is no doubt that it was a questionable case for the WMD's. At the time, the biggest pieces of intelligence used to indict Iraq by the administration were the Niger documents, the aluminum tubes, and the appropriately named Curveball. We know now that there were serious misgivings about each of those sources at the time they were being fed to us. The response from the Bush apologists is that, "We didn't hear about that back then, so it can't be true." Well, no kidding, that is what fixing the intelligence is all about. It's about not reporting what doesn't fit into what you are trying to sell. It's a catch-22.

[Dutch]

MrBigglesworth,

The most basic defination of interpreting information says they did not lie about any of it.