Downing Street Memo

[CraigSca]

I must have been part of that 20-30% who didn't think he was connected - directly, anyway. Oh sure, he may have given some money to some kind of terrorist organization that gave money to so-and-so that paid for one of the hijackers plane tickets.

Really, I thought this was a war more about the intelligence we and every other nation had at the time about WMDs and the fact that he had been giving the world the finger for over 10 years. His terrorist support was just icing on the cake.

[Glengoyne]

OK I'll type slowly maybe that will help.

I'm saying that the administration proclaimed that Saddam had past and current ties to terror organizations, including Al Qaeda. I don't believe it is difficult to prove that those ties existed.

I'm also saying that the administration actively proclaimed that Saddam, given his ties to terror organizations, might someday ally with a terror organization to attack the United States.

It just seems easier to believe that the dots the administration connected between Saddam and Terrorism show the future potential threat which the admin talked about, rather than the Saddam was behind 9/11 conclusion that people are drawing.

Regarding the 70%-80% of people believing that Saddam was connected to 9/11...I don't buy it. I believe it is most likely the result of either bad polling practices/interpretation or a poll designed to generate that result. Perhaps it was done by the University of Maryland(I think it was University of Maryland in any case) group that posted absurd numbers about Bush supporters believing ridiculous notions in the run up to the election.

Edit: Oh I also agree exactly with what CraigSca said above. The invasion of Iraq wasn't packaged and sold as part of the war on Terror until after the invasion when the resistance reared its ugly head. Now if we were to be discussing the legitimacy of that proclamation by the administration, then I suspect there would be some common ground.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I'm saying that the administration proclaimed that Saddam had past and current ties to terror organizations, including Al Qaeda. I don't believe it is difficult to prove that those ties existed.

Can you document that somehow? Because I think that is incorrect. Saddam never had any connection to Al-Q, his only connection to terrorism was to support Palestinians, which every other country in the area does.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

The invasion of Iraq wasn't packaged and sold as part of the war on Terror until after the invasion when the resistance reared its ugly head.

Bullshit.

The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that is -- I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive. - George Bush, 9/25/2002

Source (The White House)

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Regarding the 70%-80% of people believing that Saddam was connected to 9/11...I don't buy it. I believe it is most likely the result of either bad polling practices/interpretation or a poll designed to generate that result. Perhaps it was done by the University of Maryland(I think it was University of Maryland in any case) group that posted absurd numbers about Bush supporters believing ridiculous notions in the run up to the election.

Washington Post, actually. But I assume you won't believe any poll not commissioned by Fox News, right?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

OK I'll type slowly maybe that will help.

I'm saying that the administration proclaimed that Saddam had past and current ties to terror organizations, including Al Qaeda. I don't believe it is difficult to prove that those ties existed.

I'm also saying that the administration actively proclaimed that Saddam, given his ties to terror organizations, might someday ally with a terror organization to attack the United States.

It just seems easier to believe that the dots the administration connected between Saddam and Terrorism show the future potential threat which the admin talked about, rather than the Saddam was behind 9/11 conclusion that people are drawing.

Regarding the 70%-80% of people believing that Saddam was connected to 9/11...I don't buy it. I believe it is most likely the result of either bad polling practices/interpretation or a poll designed to generate that result. Perhaps it was done by the University of Maryland(I think it was University of Maryland in any case) group that posted absurd numbers about Bush supporters believing ridiculous notions in the run up to the election.

Edit: Oh I also agree exactly with what CraigSca said above. The invasion of Iraq wasn't packaged and sold as part of the war on Terror until after the invasion when the resistance reared its ugly head. Now if we were to be discussing the legitimacy of that proclamation by the administration, then I suspect there would be some common ground.

Here is a write-up of the Maryland study. By the way, a simple check on the web confirms these statistics in other polls taken at the time.

xwww.pipa.org/OnlineReports/ Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf

You may want to get your facts straight.

That study shows that 20% of Bush supporters believed that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11 (vs. 8% of Kerry supporters). However, it showed that 75% of Bush supporters thought that either they were directly involved OR gave substantial aid and support to Al Quada (to allow them to carry out the attacks).

What I find funny is that AFTER the 9/11 commission published their report (which stated that there were no material links between Iraq and Al Quada), 56% of Bush supporters thought that the report said there were!

[John Galt]

Looking back at the archives of this board (which unfortunately do not extend to 2002 and 2001), I found some interesting quotes from early 2003 (right around the time hostilities began) about Iraq and this thread seemed as good as any to post them. I left out the overtly racist posts that really were prominent during that time, but I thought these quotes represent something of a time capsule:

detroit fan said: "The US gov will show us the smoking gun when the time is right. You don't think that Saddam has not been supporting al Qaeda? This man is Hitler reborn."

In response to my statement that Iraq was far from the worst human rights offender, rkmsuf said: "I don't believe the core of the issues revolve around human rights issues."

In the same thread rkmsuf said: "We've spent the better part of 10 yrs trying to diplomatically solve the issue of Iraq and terrorism...it got us the rubble of the Twin Towers..."

Tarkus said: "Finally, if you think this movement [the invasion] against Iraq is solely motivated by Saddam I believe that's a mistake. This movement against Iraq is about 9/11."

Tarkus said: "No, the answer is because Iraq has and is developing weapons of mass destruction that they will one day either threaten us with or give to those that will. It's not about human rights violations within a particular country at this point."

jamesUMD said: "We have established that some of the 9/11 highjackers met with Iraqi Intelligence agents in the months leading up to the event. I think what we do know in conjunction with what the Intelligence community knows, we have the proof. "

Dutch said: "What have they been doing since 1991? Who's keeping pressure on Saddam? You? No. How about, me? I've spent already 3 years of my life in this part of the world "keeping the pressure" on him. The status quo got us Al Qaeda. Somethings got to give. When he makes his nuke, he's not going to check in with the U.S. Army before he exports it to Al Qaeda."

ACStrider said: " Like I said, the administration has information which suggests that Iraq has supported Al-Quaieda...doesn't necessarily equate them, but according to the Bush doctrine, those who support terrorists are just as guilty as those who are."

Fido said: "Its not about Sadam being a Dictator - there are FAR worse than him. Its about self preservation. If he were to get a nuclear weapon into the hands of Al Queda, and they were to get it into the country (not really that tough, put it on a boat and detonate it in a harbor). How many thousands if not millions of Americans woudl die? How about chemical or biological weapons? Are we to sit idly by and not do anything to protect ourselves?"

mrskippy (I know, he is too easy to pick on, but I couldn't resist) said: "It is believed that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden have a strong relationship. Some believe Iraq may have supplied bin Laden with materials for 9/11 and the anthrax attacks."

jamesUMD said: "The easy assumption would be that Bush's advisors are equally as inept as some would assume George Bush to be. I really do not think this is the case. We may joke about the government, and how illogical or stupid they are, but I think that they have a much better, and informed understanding of the situation than we could ever have. There is a reason that our forefathers chose a representative democracy. Everyone can have an opinion on every subject regardless of their knowledge of that subject. I would rather have a group of informed decision-makers map out the best course of action, over the mass opinion of the uninformed any day."

Arles said: "Also, to the length of the war. I don't know of anyone that gave an physical length in the administration. Some people said things like "easy" and "it shouldn't be that long". Now, the first Gulf War is viewed as one of the easiest and shortest wars in history. In that conflict, it took 43 days and had 300 US casualties. So, if that's your reference point for "easiest", then I would say an "easy or short" war would be 1-2 months with 500-800 casualties. And, the current conflict should fall pretty close to those numbers."

Strangely, a year later he said: "I guess my question is what was your expectation for this Iraqi war? It seems to me that much of the media and some of the citizens felt this would be a 4-5 month "skirmish" with few lives lost and a completely changed Iraq in a year. I don't know that the expectations people had for this were realistic. Again, going into a country like Iraq and uprooting its regime and completely changing its form of government is a pretty big undertaking. And to think it would take less than a year and with only a handful of lives lost seems unrealistic to me. And maybe that's the difference. We live in a soundbite nation and expect immediate results on everything - including war."

Arles said: "If we oust Sadaam and liberate the Iraqi people, I would think that hatred would subside a great deal, wouldn't you?"

Arles said: "As thousands and thousands of Al Quada members continue to plot and ploy in the US, with monetary and political backing from organizations like the Taliban and Sadaam Hussein? I certainly don't want to live like that."

Arles said: " We attack Iraq because we believe their government allows terrorist training camps, supplies arms and other actions that are national security matters."

CamEdwards said: "Are there other countries with worse human rights abuses? Yes, and we deal with them in other ways. This, bottom line, is not a war of liberation. It's a great side effect, but that's not why we're there."

stkelly52 said: "Whatever evidence that the US has, it must be VERY convincing. THe US high ups don't seem to have a doubt in their minds. I am certain that what ever he says will have the rest of the UN quite certain as well."

Dutch said: "The only way this [Powell's speech before the UN] is "unmoving" is to assume that Powell is part of an vast network of lies and conspiracy that stretch far and wide and Hussein is America's 'patsy'. Or it's the simple, cruel, truth."

Tarkus said: "I do find it interesting that many of the anti-war posters here have not been heard from lately. Maybe they just got tired of getting shouted down because there are more pro-war folks. Or maybe there are other more obvious reasons. Any way you look at this war it's a good thing.... I don't think there's a chance the Iraqi people as a whole won't be jubilant that the coalition forces have ousted Saddam."

sabotai, using his crystal ball, said: "I think we should go to war with Iraq. I think we should have awhile ago. But to be honest, I'm not sure is Bush's reasons for going to war are honest. IOW, I think he's using this whole weapons of mass destruction as kind of a smoke screen for the real reasons he wants to go to war. I'm not sure what those reasons are, it's really more of a feeling I get, plus lookign at how swiftly he moved his focus from Al-Quida to Iraq. He seemed to make that jump out of no where."

[flere-imsaho]

More grist for the mill. Including more information on the University of Maryland pollsters the Bush Apologists hate. From the Christian Science Monitor, 3/14/2003.

WASHINGTON - In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime.

"The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]," says Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.

The numbers
Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.

According to Mr. Kull of PIPA, there is a strong correlation between those who see the Sept. 11-Iraq connection and those who support going to war.

In Selma, Ala., firefighter Thomas Wilson supports going to war with Iraq, and brings up Sept. 11 himself, saying we don't know who's already here in the US waiting to attack. When asked what that has to do with Iraq, he replies: "They're all in it together - all of them hate this country." The reason: "prosperity."

Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden himself recently encouraged the perception of a link, when he encouraged attacks on the US in response to a US war against Iraq. But, terror experts note, common animosity toward the United States does not make Hussein and Mr. bin Laden allies.

Hussein, a secularist, and bin Laden, a Muslim fundamentalist, are known to despise each other. Bin Laden's stated sympathies are always toward the Iraqi people, not the regime.

This is not to say that Hussein has no link to terrorists. Over the years, terrorist leader Abu Nidal - who died in Baghdad last year - used Iraq as a sometime base. Terrorism experts also don't rule out that some Al Qaeda fighters have slipped into Iraqi territory.

The point, says Eric Larson, a senior policy analyst at RAND who specializes in public opinion and war, is that the US public understands what Hussein is all about - which includes his invasion of two countries and the use of biological and chemical agents. "He's expressed interest - and done more than that - in trying to develop a nuclear capability," says Mr. Larson. "In general, the public is rattled about this.... There's a jumble of attitudes in many Americans' minds, which fit together as a mosaic that [creates] a basic predisposition for military action against Saddam."

[flere-imsaho]

John - Excellent post. Thanks for doing that research.

I find this sequence in particular very disturbing:

Arles said: "Also, to the length of the war. I don't know of anyone that gave an physical length in the administration. Some people said things like "easy" and "it shouldn't be that long". Now, the first Gulf War is viewed as one of the easiest and shortest wars in history. In that conflict, it took 43 days and had 300 US casualties. So, if that's your reference point for "easiest", then I would say an "easy or short" war would be 1-2 months with 500-800 casualties. And, the current conflict should fall pretty close to those numbers."

Strangely, a year later he said: "I guess my question is what was your expectation for this Iraqi war? It seems to me that much of the media and some of the citizens felt this would be a 4-5 month "skirmish" with few lives lost and a completely changed Iraq in a year. I don't know that the expectations people had for this were realistic. Again, going into a country like Iraq and uprooting its regime and completely changing its form of government is a pretty big undertaking. And to think it would take less than a year and with only a handful of lives lost seems unrealistic to me. And maybe that's the difference. We live in a soundbite nation and expect immediate results on everything - including war."

Arles said: "If we oust Sadaam and liberate the Iraqi people, I would think that hatred would subside a great deal, wouldn't you?"

Arles said: "As thousands and thousands of Al Quada members continue to plot and ploy in the US, with monetary and political backing from organizations like the Taliban and Sadaam Hussein? I certainly don't want to live like that."

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

I'm not sure I buy your logical reasoning here. Here you are basically saying:

1. Al Qaeda does not attack sponsoring states/organizations
2. The Baath Party was not attacked, therefore..
3. The Baath Party must therefore be a sponsor of al Qaeda.

That is a quite a leap.

Is it more or less of a leap than Bush invaded Iraq to trade American Blood for Oil to line Halliburton's pockets in order to pay big dividends to Cheney which somehow gets Bush re-elected?

C'mon, I'm working with reasonable suspicion--AT LEAST.

[Blackadar]

Ouch! Totally beaten by your own posts.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Exactly. As has been shown, after invading Iraq, the inspections & sanctions worked at keeping Iraq from producing arms.

Of course, what's richly ironic about your comments on Rogue nations is a cursory look at Pakistan, a state that's leaked WMD information to other rogue states and organizations. Apparently they're OK, because Bush sells them fighter jets!

the side effect of the sanctions did NOT work. They did not punish Saddam and only succeeded in punishing the people of Iraq. The inspections, in hindsight, seemed to be working but the sanctions were not.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

The invasion of Iraq wasn't packaged and sold as part of the war on Terror until after the invasion when the resistance reared its ugly head.

I can't help myself, because this is so easy to debunk.

You'll note from the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq:

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;

And then there's Bush's letter to Congress before the invasion:

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing 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.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

[MrBigglesworth]

Arles said: "Also, to the length of the war. I don't know of anyone that gave an physical length in the administration. Some people said things like "easy" and "it shouldn't be that long". Now, the first Gulf War is viewed as one of the easiest and shortest wars in history. In that conflict, it took 43 days and had 300 US casualties. So, if that's your reference point for "easiest", then I would say an "easy or short" war would be 1-2 months with 500-800 casualties. And, the current conflict should fall pretty close to those numbers."

Strangely, a year later he said: "I guess my question is what was your expectation for this Iraqi war? It seems to me that much of the media and some of the citizens felt this would be a 4-5 month "skirmish" with few lives lost and a completely changed Iraq in a year. I don't know that the expectations people had for this were realistic. Again, going into a country like Iraq and uprooting its regime and completely changing its form of government is a pretty big undertaking. And to think it would take less than a year and with only a handful of lives lost seems unrealistic to me. And maybe that's the difference. We live in a soundbite nation and expect immediate results on everything - including war."

I hate to beat a dead horse, but is there any more proof that you need about someone's partisan hackery than repeating the same doublethink as the administration? I'll admit that my statements today do not bear much of a resemblance to my statements in 2003, but I admit that I was wrong. The Bush apologists instead try and revise history, and I think that has been obvious in this thread.

We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Ouch! Totally beaten by your own posts.

Perhaps you have misunderstood?

[JPhillips]

John: Do you have copies of the original posts? How did two posts from different days end up on the same page? And how do we know Arles even typed these? Maybe it was you posing as Arles so you could set him up later.

No, I think its safe to assume that Arles was always right and his critics always wrong.

[Dutch]

Dutch said: "What have they been doing since 1991? Who's keeping pressure on Saddam? You? No. How about, me? I've spent already 3 years of my life in this part of the world "keeping the pressure" on him. The status quo got us Al Qaeda. Somethings got to give. When he makes his nuke, he's not going to check in with the U.S. Army before he exports it to Al Qaeda."

Why is this one of the anti-Bush/pro-Saddam/pro-Al-Qaeda crowd "Posts of the Decade"?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

John: Do you have copies of the original posts? How did two posts from different days end up on the same page? And how do we know Arles even typed these? Maybe it was you posing as Arles so you could set him up later.

No, I think its safe to assume that Arles was always right and his critics always wrong.

You might want to try something like a /sarcasm marker. Last time I tried parody in this thread, Arles kind of missed it.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Why is this one of the anti-Bush/pro-Saddam/pro-Al-Qaeda crowd "Posts of the Decade"?

Huh? I never said "Posts of the Decade" but thanks for referring to me as "pro-saddam" and "pro-al-qaeda."

I thought it was interesting for the statement that "the status quo [policy against Saddam] got us Al Qaeda" - unless I'm missing something.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Can you document that somehow? Because I think that is incorrect. Saddam never had any connection to Al-Q, his only connection to terrorism was to support Palestinians, which every other country in the area does.

The only documentation I can provide would be the September 11th report and the statements made by several of the commisioners in the aftermath of its release. According to those sources there had been a dialogue of some sort between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi Government(Saddam Hussein). Those contacts didn't constitute a meaningful relationship, but the contacts themselves aren't being denied as far as I know. Then certainly once we had gone into Afghanistan, there was the bit about Al Zarqawi(sp?) being given refuge in Iraq, and treated in an Iraqi hospital for wounds he received in Afghanistan.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I hate to beat a dead horse, but is there any more proof that you need about someone's partisan hackery than repeating the same doublethink as the administration? I'll admit that my statements today do not bear much of a resemblance to my statements in 2003, but I admit that I was wrong. The Bush apologists instead try and revise history, and I think that has been obvious in this thread.

We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia.

I think it should be pointed out that Arles thought the war would be short and sweet going into it. The Bush Administration never said any such thing.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Is it more or less of a leap than Bush invaded Iraq to trade American Blood for Oil to line Halliburton's pockets in order to pay big dividends to Cheney which somehow gets Bush re-elected?

C'mon, I'm working with reasonable suspicion--AT LEAST.

Both arguments are equally fanciful, since very little evidence exists to support either assertion. In fact, most evidence that does exist is contrarian:

Osama - Saddam link?
Saddam was a survivalist, not an idealogue, who would never host AQ because he
(1) was scared to death of religious fundamentalism
(2) was already under the watchful eye of the US air surveilance

AQ is self-financing, they don't need what little money Saddam would be able to muster as Iraq's economy continued to decline. WMD's are a different matter. It is not clear whether Saddam still had WMD's by the late 1990s. But if Saddam did have WMD's, why would he give them to AQ? That would only seem to invite certain retaliation. Remember, Saddam's primary focus was on surviving; he wouldn't do anything that would invite his certain demise. If that were the case, he would have loaded the scuds bound for Jerusalem in the 1990 war with chemical warheads...

Blood for Oil?
As for the blood for oil stuff... the links are just as tenuous, since we don't get our oil from the middle east. It had very little to do with oil at all, since Russia (production) and China (consumption) are the primary levers on the world oil market these days.

As for Haliburton, a no-bid contract was awarded, but to think that thoughts of a possible contract had a bearing on the initial decision to go to war--well, that is patently ridiculous. Remember, the administration did little planning for the aftermath of the war: I don't see how they could have really thoroughly considered how much post-war infrastructure rebuilding they would need to do, so I doubt they had much of an idea beforehand about how much they would need Haliburton. In fact, Haliburton is actually losing money with its Iraq operations--so it even seems possible that the administration either did not know how much it needed to spend, or actually tried to get Haliburton to low-ball so as not to arouse suspicion of impropriety (I don't know which, if any, is the case).

I think that the commentary on this board from both the pro- and anti- war crowd slips into analysis based on faulty logic and fanciful assertions with alarming frequency. In my posts on foreign policy topics, I try my best to come up with conclusions based on good-old logical hypothesis testing. Not sure if I do a good enough job sometimes (though this is a fake sports sim message board afterall), but that is where I am coming from...

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Washington Post, actually. But I assume you won't believe any poll not commissioned by Fox News, right?

Actually I believe Zogby is pretty much the standard for accuracy in polling nowadays.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Perhaps you have misunderstood?

No, but it was directed more at Arles.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I can't help myself, because this is so easy to debunk.

You'll note from the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq:



And then there's Bush's letter to Congress before the invasion:

Did you actually read the Joint Resolution or just post the bits above out of context.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression....

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...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,...

Whereas in 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,...

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 resolutions of the United Nations Security Council ...

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 ...

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 American 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 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660...

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)... pursuant to United Nations Security Council ... Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, ...

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (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...

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...


Yada yada yada

The resolution pretty well makes it clear that the government felt that Saddam was supporting International terrorism, and that he was harboring terrorists. They reference the congressional resolutions authorizing force against nations that harbor terrorists as well as those that participated in the attacks of September 11th. It doesn't make the case that Saddam played any role in September 11th.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I think it should be pointed out that Arles thought the war would be short and sweet going into it. The Bush Administration never said any such thing.

Oh?

it is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months. - Donald Rumsfeld, 2/7/2003

We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly... (in) weeks rather than months.” . - Dick Cheney, 3/16/2003

Edit: How could I forget?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

The resolution pretty well makes it clear that the government felt that Saddam was supporting International terrorism, and that he was harboring terrorists. They reference the congressional resolutions authorizing force against nations that harbor terrorists as well as those that participated in the attacks of September 11th. It doesn't make the case that Saddam played any role in September 11th.

Well, that's an interesting reading of the document.... As I said before, the Bush Apologists are going to believe what they want to believe, despite the evidence.

[MrBigglesworth]

I was just looking up old quotes (to post something similar to what flere already posted), and found this:

MR. RUSSERT:...What do you think is the most important rationale for going to war with Iraq?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I think I’ve just given it, Tim, in terms of the combination of his development and use of chemical weapons, his development of biological weapons, his pursuit of nuclear weapons.

MR. RUSSERT: And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said he does not have a nuclear program, we disagree?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree, yes.

Meet the Press, March 16, 2003.

Kind of a kick in the face to the revisionists who say that everyone in the world thought Saddam had WMD's, isn't it?

[Flasch186]

....Glen is right, actually, they did find that one guy who killed the wheel chaired American on that ship in the MEd. so they were harboring international terrorists. I believe that was Islamic Jihad but I could be way wrong there. Anyways, splitting hairs....they said "international terrorism" and a few sentences later bush would say international terrorism includes Al Qaeda so that means A = C...but I digress, the IRA is not affiliated with Al Qaeda yet we consider them International Terrorists so it really doesn't hold water. Like Clinton ( ) by choosing their words and being as cloudy and murky as possible they leave it up to you to decide. Luckily for them, most Americans thought that Bush and co. We're talking about Saddam and 9/11...most that that Saddam and Al Qaeda were linked (i mean what is a relationship anyways? - everyone has a relationship [so thats again a cloudy word])....I think if the Right would simply admit the fault and move on, most American's would be cool with it (I know I would as I still am glad we knocked Saddam out) but I think that theyre afraid that by admitting to the obvious (at least to most American's) that that will be immediately followed by a call to bring the troops home. I know Im against that so to me its simply quibbling and trying to deny the obvious (obvious in that poll #'s support it along with the quotes documented)

[MrBigglesworth]

That Meet the Press is hilarious, everyone should read it. Here is another excerpt:

MR. RUSSERT: The army’s top general said that we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there for several years in order to maintain stability.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree. We need, obviously, a large force and we’ve deployed a large force. To prevail, from a military standpoint, to achieve our objectives, we will need a significant presence there until such time as we can turn things over to the Iraqis themselves. But to suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don’t think is accurate. I think that’s an overstatement.

MR. RUSSERT: We have had 50,000 troops in Kosovo for several years, a country of just five million people. This is a country of 23 million people. It will take a lot in order to secure it.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, but we’ve significantly drawn down our forces in Kosovo and in the Balkans. There’s no question but what we’ll have to have a presence there for a period of time. It is difficult now to specify how long. We will clearly want to take on responsibilities in addition to conducting military operations and eliminating Saddam Hussein’s regime. We need to be prepared to provide humanitarian assistance, medical care, food, all of those other things that are required to have Iraq up and running again. And we are well-equipped to do that. We have got a lot of effort that’s gone into that.

But the—again, I come back to this proposition—Is it cost-free? Absolutely not. But the cost is far less than it will be if we get hit, for example, with a weapon that Saddam Hussein might provide to al-Qaeda, the cost to the United States of what happened on 9/11 with billions and billions of dollars and 3,000 lives. And the cost will be much greater in a future attack if the terrorists have access to the kinds of capabilities that Saddam Hussein has developed.

MR. RUSSERT: Every analysis said this war itself would cost about $80 billion, recovery of Baghdad, perhaps of Iraq, about $10 billion per year. We should expect as American citizens that this would cost at least $100 billion for a two-year involvement.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I can’t say that, Tim. There are estimates out there. It’s important, though, to recognize that we’ve got a different set of circumstances than we’ve had in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan you’ve got a nation without significant resources. In Iraq you’ve got a nation that’s got the second-largest oil reserves in the world, second only to Saudi Arabia. It will generate billions of dollars a year in cash flow if they get back to their production of roughly three million barrels of oil a day, in the relatively near future...

For the record, oil production today in Iraq is under 2 million barrels a day, 20% lower than it was before the war, and the war in Iraq currently has cost us $180 billion. I think it is clear that the people out there that are saying that none of these things could have been foreseen, that everyone thought the same as the administration, are completely revising history.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

More grist for the mill. Including more information on the University of Maryland pollsters the Bush Apologists hate. From the Christian Science Monitor, 3/14/2003.

I don't think I am completely a Bush Apologist, as there are plenty of things the President has done, that I completely disagree with. As for the Maryland Pollsters(PIPA). I think they are pretty biased in their interpretation of poll results....

"The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]," says Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.

He asserts that it is the administration connecting these dots..which I find odd since they really weren't doing so overtly, as many Bush haters have said.

The numbers this group has come up with in the past seem to be as phony to me as the Poll during the California Recall election that showed Cruz Bustamante ahead of Ahnold by some 20 points. Polls aren't inherently unbiased unless those conducting them take pains to do so. The PIPA group doesn't really seem all that interested in remaining non-partisan, therefore I question the validity of some of their work.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Oh?





Edit: How could I forget?

I stand corrected in that members of the Administration did, as you illustrated, say that the war would be relatively short. The president routinely said the matter would take years and cost thousands of lives. This makes me really regret*not* previously stating that the war was in fact over in a short period of time. It is simply the security of Iraq that our troops are now working on. In other words...The shooting war is over(mission accomplished) we are now in a police action. It is just that in this case police work/security is being done by the millitary.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I stand corrected in that members of the Administration did, as you illustrated, say that the war would be relatively short. The president routinely said the matter would take years and cost thousands of lives. This makes me really regret previously stating that the war was in fact over in a short period of time. It is simply the security of Iraq that our troops are now working on. In other words...The shooting war is over(mission accomplished) we are now in a police action. It is just that in this case police work/security is being done by the millitary.

Fair enough, however I would be willing to bet that the admin. would never state that it is a "police situation" as it would leave the door open for opponents to start the "bring our troops home" talk...eventhough what you said is accurate.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Well, that's an interesting reading of the document.... As I said before, the Bush Apologists are going to believe what they want to believe, despite the evidence.

It is stated in plain english that Saddam was Harboring terrorists. It was stated that Congress was authorizing the use of force on Iraq because, among other reasons...they had authorized the use of force on nations that were harboring terrorists.

It is easier to read what the document explicitly states, than to read into it what you are trying to. Just because September 11th is mentioned in the Resolution, doesn't mean that Iraq is being linked to September 11th. Rather the authorization to use force on Iraq partly relies on the previous resolution authorizing force against nations that would harbor terrorists or actually aided in the September 11th attacks.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Fair enough, however I would be willing to bet that the admin. would never state that it is a "police situation" as it would leave the door open for opponents to start the "bring our troops home" talk...eventhough what you said is accurate.

I think you are correct with that assertion. Rather than call it police work or law enforcement, the admin is lumping it in with the "war on Terror". I'm not exactly happy with that characterization, although it is more true today that it was two years ago when they first started making the claim.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I think you are correct with that assertion. Rather than call it police work or law enforcement, the admin is lumping it in with the "war on Terror". I'm not exactly happy with that characterization, although it is more true today that it was two years ago when they first started making the claim.

we agree

[Arles]

Originally Posted by John Gault

Arles said: "Also, to the length of the war. I don't know of anyone that gave an physical length in the administration. Some people said things like "easy" and "it shouldn't be that long". Now, the first Gulf War is viewed as one of the easiest and shortest wars in history. In that conflict, it took 43 days and had 300 US casualties. So, if that's your reference point for "easiest", then I would say an "easy or short" war would be 1-2 months with 500-800 casualties. And, the current conflict should fall pretty close to those numbers."

If you would have looked at the context (too much to ask - I guess), you would have seen I was talking about the military campaign to remove the regime. There's no real baseline (outside of WWII - which took decades) for the process of building a major nation from losing a war and regime change to the point of self-sufficiency - which seems to be what you were inferring.

Strangely, a year later he said: "I guess my question is what was your expectation for this Iraqi war? It seems to me that much of the media and some of the citizens felt this would be a 4-5 month "skirmish" with few lives lost and a completely changed Iraq in a year. I don't know that the expectations people had for this were realistic. Again, going into a country like Iraq and uprooting its regime and completely changing its form of government is a pretty big undertaking. And to think it would take less than a year and with only a handful of lives lost seems unrealistic to me. And maybe that's the difference. We live in a soundbite nation and expect immediate results on everything - including war."

Again, we have a smenatics issue and a lack of context. The military effort to remove Saddam was fairly quick. The effort to help create a new regime was going to be much more difficult and time consuming. It seems to me that John is making no attempt to look at the context of these posts and differ between

A) the military effort to remove Saddam (I stated it should take a few months and a couple hundred casualties).

B) the total US and world effort to help take Iraq from a dictatorship to a self-sufficient democratic form of government (which I stated would be a tough road).

But, hey, why bring context into such a fun game of cherry picking statements

[Arles]

dola, to help with the context, the original post I responded to dealt with the apparant "quagmire" that the battle for Baghdad could turn into:

The column is moving from fighting position to fighting position, from revetment to revetment, always taking protective cover. "This is their turf," one official said. "They've probably done exercises there their whole life. The defense of Baghdad is all they've trained for."

Finally, the resilience of the Medina division will be a major indicator of whether the Third Infantry Division can do the job by itself or will have to dig in and wait for help sometime in April from the Fourth Infantry Division.

Unless Saddam Hussein's government collapses after part of the Republican Guard is destroyed, an attack on the capital is likely to be postponed until that division arrives, some defense officials and other experts predicted.

"We're not going to rush headlong into the city, absolutely fruitless to do so and suicidal at best," one Pentagon official said. "The goal is to encircle the city and take it on our terms."

My response was tailored towards this assault to remove Saddam and was not implying the rebuilding of Iraq and entire democratic form of government would be "easy or short".

The second comment was in response to the act of building a new Iraq nation and removing the regime. So, with the proper context provided, I stand by both statements that the effort to remove Saddam from power was not going to be akin to "vietnam" (as one of the original posters alluded to). But, that the effort to take a leaderless Iraq that dealt with tyranny for decades and turn it into a self-sufficient and representative government was going to be a tough road.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Oh?





Edit: How could I forget?

I think those Navy boys did a great job, no matter what the Dem's tell us.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I think those Navy boys did a great job, no matter what the Dem's tell us.

Ive never disagreed with that sentiment...All of our military have done a great job of Warring...not such a great job of policing but I think its a task they were not trained properly for. Not their fault and I wish them God speed.

EDIT:

Just remember its Bush that cut a lot of stuff for the VA, Veterans and Bases.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Ive never disagreed with that sentiment...All of our military have done a great job of Warring...not such a great job of policing but I think its a task they were not trained properly for. Not their fault and I wish them God speed.

EDIT:

Just remember its Bush that cut a lot of stuff for the VA, Veterans and Bases.

The mission those Navy Boys accomplished had nothing to do with what you are suggesting. The banner was for their part in toppling Saddam Hussein and they did a marvelous job without *.

The hard-line Democrats use that sign against the military for political gain. They should be ashamed of themselves.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Ive never disagreed with that sentiment...All of our military have done a great job of Warring...not such a great job of policing but I think its a task they were not trained properly for. Not their fault and I wish them God speed.

I can say I agree 100% with an entire statement by Flasch. What is the world coming to?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The mission those Navy Boys accomplished had nothing to do with what you are suggesting. The banner was for their part in toppling Saddam Hussein and they did a marvelous job without *.

The hard-line Democrats use that sign against the military for political gain. They should be ashamed of themselves.

There should be a 'Spin of the Month' award.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The mission those Navy Boys accomplished had nothing to do with what you are suggesting. The banner was for their part in toppling Saddam Hussein and they did a marvelous job without *.

The hard-line Democrats use that sign against the military for political gain. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Garbage, and the admin. started reacting to the reaction in due course, flipping it this way and that. AT first defending it, then saying it was someone without permission, then distancing and now trying to forget it happened...so how do you come up with your point of you that the Right SPECIFICALLY put that up (or the navy put that up, ["Mission Accomplished"], in a specific reference to the NAVY ONLY, leaving all other branches out. c'mon....thats ridiculous...I guess it's too bad for the Army, air Force, Marines, Coast gaurd, etc. They apparently did not accomplish the mission, according to Dutch [tongue in cheek].

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Garbage, and the admin. started reacting to the reaction in due course, flipping it this way and that. AT first defending it, then saying it was someone without permission, then distancing and now trying to forget it happened...so how do you come up with your point of you that the Right SPECIFICALLY put that up (or the navy put that up, ["Mission Accomplished"], in a specific reference to the NAVY ONLY, leaving all other branches out. c'mon....thats ridiculous...I guess it's too bad for the Army, air Force, Marines, Coast gaurd, etc. They apparently did not accomplish the mission, according to Dutch [tongue in cheek].

As a member of the Air Force, I was glad to see it. Morale Boost. The speech he gave underneath that sign specifically stated that toppling Saddam wasn't the end. That there was much hard and dangerous work still to be done and with many challenges.

That's not spin.

In any event, everybody blames hard-line Democrats for spinning it unethically. The problem these days with the Dem's is they are so busy defending those hard-liners instead of distancing themselves from them.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

There should be a 'Spin of the Month' award.

"Gitmo is a Russian Gulag" would win--no?

[duckman]

*looks around*

I'm sorry. I must be in the wrong place.

*slowly backs out*

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I stand corrected in that members of the Administration did, as you illustrated, say that the war would be relatively short. The president routinely said the matter would take years and cost thousands of lives. This makes me really regret previously stating that the war was in fact over in a short period of time. It is simply the security of Iraq that our troops are now working on. In other words...The shooting war is over(mission accomplished) we are now in a police action. It is just that in this case police work/security is being done by the millitary.

oh that's what it means now? funny, before it somehow meant "we got saddam" but obviously that has changed. just because they never explicitly said what the banner was for, it's pretty obvious what it was meant to portray and it certainly wasn't "the shooting war is over"

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Dutch

In any event, everybody blames hard-line Democrats for spinning it unethically. The problem these days with the Dem's is they are so busy defending those hard-liners instead of distancing themselves from them.

I wouldn't call them hard-line democrats as much as I would say idiots with a mic. Its not like normal republicans haven't tried to distance themselves from their "hard-liners". I just think there are a lot of people on both sides of the aisle who have become too full of themselves, and I have no problem putting them in their place. Unfortunately, its the outspoken idiots who become the public sees and then become the face of the party (and then for some reason are actually promoted by the party to power (see DeLay and Dean).

Lets face it, both parties have been given huge opportunities to step up on various issues and they completely blow it by putting these blowhards in front of the mic. Look at the dems, they have decent support on the war, but the leadership has no idea what to do. They just want to say whatever will get people talking, even if they're not talking about the right things. They need to understand that there can be soundbites that don't have to take an extreme psycho postion, and the populace will still hear it. McCain and company closer to the middle seem to understand that... its a shame the rest of the jackasses are the ones not listening.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Chubby

oh that's what it means now? funny, before it somehow meant "we got saddam" but obviously that has changed. just because they never explicitly said what the banner was for, it's pretty obvious what it was meant to portray and it certainly wasn't "the shooting war is over"

The fact of the matter is that no one spelled out exactly what that banner meant, but it is pretty reasonable to believe it was applicable to the situation at hand. He was celebrating on a ship that was returning from a successful campaign to overthrow a foreign capital. For the sailors in that battle group, the war was over. I have pretty well always maintained that the war in Iraq ended with the capitulation of the Iraqi government. From that moment on our soldiers weren't fighting a war, they were essentially enforcing the rule of law...or trying to do so. I sometimes get flack for referring to "post war" Iraq, but in reality that is what it is.