Alright- some contention with #5, so we will rephrase it:
5.) Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger by the CIA, and not asked directly by the Office of the Vice President, as some media reports claim.
And #6, which should be a gimme:
6.) One of the main reasons (but not the only) offered the public for the necessity of invading Iraq was that Saddam Hussein had WMD, had a WMD campaign, or was actively seeking WMD.
6.) Post 9/11, the administration and others believed that Saddam Hussein had WMD, was developing WMD, or wanted to develop WMD, and this was no longer acceptable. This was not the only reason provided for the necessity of invading Iraq, but it was the main reason that was advanced by the administration, and it was a primary selling point to the American public.
Answer only “YES” if you agree, “No” and a reason if you disagree. Flame wars should be held in Darrell’s Plame Flame War Thread.
*** Update ***
Statement #6, the ‘gimme,’ has been edited.
Christie S.
Yes and Yes
synuclein
Yes to both
chris m
Yes/Yes
nyrev
Yes to both.
Rick
Si-si.
Not so-so.
Cordially…
Defense Guy
Yes and Yes
p.lukasiak
5) No, because I don’t recall any evidence that there were media reports that claimed that Wilson was “asked directly by the Office of the Vice President” (
(opinion is subject to revision if someone finds such reports)
6) No, because it presents a misleading reading of the facts. WMDs may not have been the only reason presented to the American people — but it was the “fact” that Iraq had WMDs that was constantly hammered home to the American people in order to convince them that Saddam represented a sufficient threat to justify military action.
I’d settle for
6.) The primary (but not the only) reason offered the public for the necessity of invading Iraq was that Saddam Hussein was a threat because he had biological and chemical weapons stockpiled, was producing additional biological and chemical weapons, and was actively pursuing a nuclear weapon.
Tim F
5) Yep
6) Semantic quibble – the only reason ever given for the necessity of invading Iraq was WMD and terrorism. Several other reasons were given for the desirability of invading Iraq, including a floweing of Democracy and other such blather, but none of that made war a necessity. Only imminent threats do that. So my answer is ‘quibble.’
foolishmortal
Yes and Qualified Yes. I do not believe there to have been any other pre-war justification that could be reasonably characterised as a “main reason”.
If you’re looking for consensus here, your “not only” qualifier is just asking for trouble.
Nikki
Yes and yes (especially if “one of the main” is changed to “The main.”
Phil Smith
Yes to both.
Kirk Spencer
Yes. Yes.
MikeAdamson
No to #5 for the same reason as lukasiak
Yes to #6.
demimondian
Yes to the first, qualified yes to the second, although I’d prefer “The main reason” to “one of the main reasons”.
Other reasons were not significant, although they were mentioned. Hussein’s active non-cooperation, etc. were well estalished, and we had built up an effective regime for handling them. The claim that the sactions had already failed to prevent the reemrgence of an Iraq with WMDs was a key part of the argument for war.
Steve
Yes and yes. The only caveat is that 6) doesn’t paint the full picture, as what’s important here are not just WMDs in general, but nukes specifically. Everyone believed Saddam to have WMDs, including Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, and the whole lot. But arguably, it was the Bush Administration and no one else that played up the nuclear threat, saying that we couldn’t afford to wait for “the smoking gun that may come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” So if you want a full picture of the case for war, and how the Niger trip ties into it, you really have to focus on the Administration’s desire to specifically document a nuclear threat from Iraq.
Jeff Medcalf
5: Yes
6: Yes
What a fantastic exercise!
eileen from OH
5. Yes
6. No.
Because it fails to include the imminent danger business which put the WMD to the forefront of why we went WHEN we went. And it’s why everyone remembers it as the main reason. Yeah, there were a lot of reasons given to go, but the only reason we couldn’t WAIT was the WMD.
6.) One of the main reasons (but not the only) offered the public for the necessity of invading Iraq was that Saddam Hussein had WMD, had a WMD campaign, or was actively seeking WMD. But it was the urgency of WMD danger which provided the main rationale for immediate action.
Or something like that.
eileen from OH
p.lukasiak
interesting how everyone seems to have already bought into the White House spin that there was inaccurate reporting being done about the origins of Wilson’s trip to Niger. I just spend a few minutes, trying to find such reports, and came up with nothing.
The closest to “inaccurate” one is likely to find is out of context “ambiguous” language that is explained more fully elsewhere in a report. (i.e. stuff like “Wilson’s trip was taken at the instigation of the Vice President”)
But its abundantly clear from Wilson’s original piece that no claim was ever made by Wilson that he was “asked directly by the OVP” and Wilson makes it clear that he was “asked directly” by the CIA. So it is incredibly difficult to understand how “inaccurate reports” of Wilson being “asked directly by the OVP” could come about.
What was being reported is that “the administration” was responsible for sending Wilson — which was perfectly true.
Finally, it must be noted that it was completely unnecessary for “Wilson’s wife” to be mentioned, even if one assumes that the White House was justified in “clearing the air” about the origins of Wilson’s trip. Rove et.al. could simply have said “Neither Cheney nor Tenet were directly involved in, or even aware of, Joe Wilson’s selection to make the trip to Niger. That decision was made at an administrative level of the CIA.”
Yet it is equally clear that Rove wanted “Wilson’s wife” to become a matter of public record, but did not want anyone to know that the White House was involved in the disclosure. Cooper makes it clear that, despite the fact that the story was on “double super secret background”, he thought it could be published as long as it was not sourced to Rove, or anyone in the White House. “Double super secret background” clearly is a reference to Rove’s involvement in spreading the story, and not the story itself.
Thus, the only conclusion that can be reached is that mentioning “Wilson’s wife” was nothing more than an attempt to discredit Wilson by raising the spectre of nepotism — while keeping the White House at arms length from that disclosure (and, it should be noted, Novak complied with the “arms length” request, identifying his sources not as “White House officials” but as “senior administration officials” — a designation used when the source does not work in the White House.
Tim F
A helpful link for those who think that ‘some media reports’ includes Wilson himself.
Trevor
Yes and Yes.
People, maybe John’s sick of saying it, but give a frickin’ link if you disagree. Nobody cares if you are absolutely sure, give a specific reason and something to back it up.
John Cole
Paul-
No one gives a shit (at least not here) who said what. Whetehr you like it or not, there were (and are) erroneous reports that the VP directly asked Wilson to go. It dsoesn’t matter if Wilson did or did not say it, it does not matter whether this was jus part of GOP talking points- what matters is the accuracy of the statement:
Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger by the CIA, and not asked directly by the Office of the Vice President, as some media reports claim.
Is that true, or false? Yes, or no?
ppgaz
Number 6: Yes ..
…but …
“Reasons offered” hardly tells the tale. What counts is the nature of the PR campaign. WMD, the spectre of chemical, biological and nuclear WMD to be specific, was the hammer, the punchline, the closer. Over and over again, in speeches, in interviews, they pushed it out there. Right alongside the also imaginary “connection to 9-11.”
Let’s not pretend that WMD was “just another item” on a list. It wasn’t. It was sold as THE BIG SCARY THING. We would not have a war today without that ruse.
No sooner did it become clear, after invasion, that the WMD weren’t there, than Liar in Chief Bush was making a joke out of looking for WMD in front of an audience.
As if being wrong about the causus belli which was, and still is, killing American troops, was a fucking joke.
Yeah, very goddam funny. We’re all laughing now.
Tim F
The problem with question 6 is that bringing democracy to the middle east doesn’t make war a necessity. It makes war an idea that we should maybe think about taking up when we’re not busy fighting terrorism. Only the WMD threat upgraded the Iraq war from a whimsical notion to a necessity.
Emperor Larry Bernard
Yes to both
though this open source debate… I am not sure where we’ll end up here
Darrell
Yes X 2.
___________________________
regarding eileen’s claim:
Bush of course, went out of his way to avoid the use of ‘imminent threat’ (“grave and gathering threat”, etc), but made the case for how does one know when a threat is ‘imminent’? What were all those WMD’s Saddam had certainly manufactured and used in the past going to be used for?.. Every post-invasion report has confirmed a network of ‘dual use’ manufacturing capabilities. Does one trust a guy like Saddam?
I would say that Iran and N. Korea are both “urgent threats”, wouldn’t you eileen? What do you suggest we do there since you’re twisting what was said about Iraq?.
JC
5) “Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger by the CIA, and not asked directly by the Office of the Vice President”, leave out the “media reports”. Then YES
6) Change “one of the main” to “main” or “primary” then I say YES
JC
5) “Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger by the CIA, and not asked directly by the Office of the Vice President”, leave out the “media reports”. Then YES
6) Change “one of the main” to “main” or “primary” then I say YES
Tim F
Okay, yes to edited 6. We’ll get our opportunity to hash out the semantic quibbles some other time or, god help me, we’ll turn every post about cats into a Plame war.
jcricket
Yes to both (now that 6 has been edited). although I would strike the “or wanted to” and replace with “and wanted to”. The administration definitely sold us as he has WMD, has the capability to build more and wants to.
Regarding #5 (which I agree is to), Here’s a href=”http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0308/03/le.00.html”>CNN transcript with Joe Wilson himself clarifying.
So while the OVP did not ask Joe Wilson directly, they did ask the CIA to get more info. The CIA asked Wilson.
p.lukasiak
No one gives a shit (at least not here) who said what.
Really? Isn’t that what this is all about? Who said what to whom, and when they said it? Isn’t the White House doing its best to parse previous statements made by Rove and other White House officials to avoid admitting that they have been lying about what happened?
Indeed, isn’t “who said what” a crucial question when the WHite House (and you) are claiming that there were “erroneous reports that the VP directly asked Wilson to go?”
Whetehr you like it or not, there were (and are) erroneous reports that the VP directly asked Wilson to go.
Like I said, John, provide me with evidence contemporaneous “media reports” that asserts that Wilson was “asked directly by the OVP” to go to Niger, and I’ll be happy to revise my opinion.
What it appears you are trying to do here is find a way to support the current White House spin that Rove & Libby’s disclosure to reporters about “Wilson’s wife” were justified by inaccurate media reports.
The reports were not inaccurate (at best, parts of them could be described as ambiguous), nor was there any need to involve “Wilson’s wife” in any refutation of this supposed “erroneous” reporting.
jcricket
Oops, corrected link to CNN Transcript
The OVP (possibly Cheney himself) asked the CIA. The CIA asked Wilson. Wilson has not lied about that.
Steve
Edited 6 is fine, and it was fine before. While I understand the point of those who want to quibble over “necessity,” understand that this was never going to be sold to the public as an optional war. If WMD had not been an issue, then they would have claimed that it was absolutely, positively necessary to liberate the Iraqi people right now, or to spread democracy in the Middle East, or whatever. “Necessity” in this context is not a significant word; you can agree with the statement without believing yourself that there was any necessity.
Andrew J. Lazarus
5: Yes, with the caveat that it’s merely the current Republican spin that Rove outed Plame to correct some mysterious misimpression that Cheney ordered/authorized the Wilson trip. No one has produced any contemporaneous stories alleging any such thing, and, of course, Wilson never made such a statement (although the GOP is trying to make it look that way by a dishonestly edited quote).
6: Yes.
ARROW
Yes to 5
Yes to 6
John Cole
There you go Paul- there were media reports that Wilson was asked directly by the OVP, and WILSON HIMSELF had to dispel them. I am not sure why you are being so contentious about this…
p.lukasiak
BTW, YES to 6….
But it does appear that you are trying to build a case/argument to “prove” a conclusion you have in mind based on the selective use of facts, rather than structure a discussion of the facts.
(i.e. its just as (if not more) relevant that, prior to the invasion of Iraq, most of the “intelligence” that was the basis of the belief “that Saddam Hussein had WMD, was developing WMD, or wanted to develop WMD” had been discredited as it is that people “believed” it was true “post 9/11”.)
Demdude
Yes on #5, although it still makes me cringe. The reason is the term “The Media” is a constant in the right wing noise machine. “The Media” encompasses so much and any jackass with a piece paper (or Weblog) is considered the media. It is like trying to win an argument using the Bible. You can always find some passage somewhere that proves your point.
Having said all of that, no one gives a shit what I think, (at least not here) so I will move on.
Yes to edited #6.
Steve
How about this for the problem that people seem to be having with #5.
ABC World News Tonight (7/6/03): “Ambassador Joe Wilson says, at the request of Vice President Cheney’s office, the CIA sent him to Niger in February 2002.”
Now, maybe Wilson never claimed that the OVP specifically sent him to Niger, and ABC totally misunderstood. But whatever, it’s still a media report, and it says the OVP requested the CIA to send Wilson to Niger.
Vladi G
Yes on 5. No on 6.
John Cole
Paul- I have no conclusive ending to this, or I would just write a damned post and list it all. I am doing this piecemeal so we can establish the facts as we all agree, and when we disagree, we restate things until everyone (most everyone) agrees.
Which is why I ONLY WANT PEOPLE COMMENTING ON THIS THREAD IF THEY DISAGREE.
Otherwise, just say yes.
Rick
The first #6 was better: less ambiguous. “Primary selling point?” It’s the one poeple remember, or choose to. As one who was upset by Poppy’s unfinished bidness in ’91, and wished for follow-through on the 1998 regime change policy, it wasn’t a “primary selling point” for me, because I was buying for other reasons.
Cordially…
Trevor
Why’d you change #6?
The second one is much more subjective and almost impossible to prove or disprove.
If the second option to #6 stays, I’d change my answer to No. My explanations: it was 16 words. I didn’t find the threat of WMD to be the main reason, because I was more concerned about a rogue regime providing support to terrorists and the push to bring democracy to the Islamic middle east (yeah, I read SDB everyday back then.) I do believe others when they say that the main reason for OIF was WMD, simply because I believe that WMD was what concerned them the most. We all tend to remember what caught our attention, and I highly doubt that anyone can objectively go back and judge what was the administrations main reason without injecting their own perspective.
Nikki
Excuse me, but Trevor and Rick, you two are not the majority of the American public. Even if the WMD was not the primary reason for you, it was for a vast number of Americans.
p.lukasiak
There you go Paul- there were media reports that Wilson was asked directly by the OVP, and WILSON HIMSELF had to dispel them. I am not sure why you are being so contentious about this…
John, if you are referring to the CNN transcripts, there is nothing that suggests that any reporting was done that said the OVP directly asked Wilson to go.
Here is the actual QUESTION that Blitzer asked, that resulted in the statement that you now say shows that “there were media reports that Wilson was asked directly by the OVP”, along with Rice’s answer…
BLITZER: But 11 months earlier, you, the Bush administration, had sent Joe Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador to Niger, to find out whether it was true. He came back, reported to the CIA, reported to the State Department, it wasn’t true, it was bogus. The whole issue was bogus. And supposedly, you never got word of his report.
RICE: Well, first of all, I didn’t know Joe Wilson was going to Niger. And if you look at Director Tenet’s statement, it says that counterproliferation experts on their own initiative sent Joe Wilson, so I don’t know…
As I noted in my earlier objection, there were reports in which “the administration” was cited as sending Wilson to Niger — and that those reports are true if ambiguous, and that ambiguity is cleared up when you read more of what was reported.
But there is a huge difference between saying that there was stuff that was ambiguous if taken out of context, and saying that there were reports that the OVP directly asked Wilson to go to Niger.
And I’m “nitpicking” about this point, because it is central to the current White House spin that all Rove was doing was “clearing the record”, and that he wasn’t trying to discredit Wilson by raising the issue of nepotism.
John Cole
No. You are nitpicking. If there is a step that states ‘Karl Rove was just trying to correct the record,” then you can have an aneurysm.
Quite simply, despite what may or may not have been stated or referred to, this statement, by itself, is demonstrably true:
There were references and allusions to Wilson being sent directly by the VP or the OVP. It isn’t true. Wilson himself stated as much. Why would Wilson respond the way he did? Or Rice?
Because there was a perception being fomented that he was sent directly…
JG
Yes.
6 is bullshit. WMD was the only reason we were given. No way a conservative president stands up and tells me we’re going to war to free oppressed people or to bring democracy to the middle east. Thats a big load of liberal bullshit. It was WMD. I supported the war for the same reasons as Rick, unfinished business. The WMD evidence always looked pretty weak to me, I just didn’t care. When he came out in july and started with the freedom crap he lost me. Since then I’ve been called a liberal.
neil
Hmm.
6, sentence 1) We don’t know what they believed; we just know what they said they believed.
6, sentence 2) Yes, although:
Jim Allen
5 -Yes
6 -Yes as originally written, No on the rewritten. I think you had it “more right” the first time.
Rick
Nikki,
Well, thanks. But as one of the Murikan Pipple, I get to cast a hesitant vote here. It was a very, very weak “yes” on 6 Part Deux. But I’m glad to meet a spokesperson for the masses, you betcha.
Cordially…
p.lukasiak
There were references and allusions to Wilson being sent directly by the VP or the OVP. It isn’t true. Wilson himself stated as much. Why would Wilson respond the way he did? Or Rice?
Rice responded the way she did because she didn’t know about Wilson’s trip — and the question that Blitzer asked was ambiguous enough to require her to clarify what happened.
Wilson responded that way because Blitzer asked a question that demanded that response. He had just been confronted with a taped excerpt in which Rice denied knowing about the trip…
There was an ongoing effort by the White House to discredit Wilson — not merely through nepotism, but also by belittling the importance of his report.
The fact that the effort continues, and that you are (unwittingly) playing your part in it, is quite distressing, John…
********************
Steve, could you provide a link for the whole ABCNews article, rather than just the poorly worded and ambiguous headline you cited. Because as I’ve been saying over and over, its not difficult to find ambiguous, out of context quotes about the origins of Wilson’s trip — it is exceedingly difficult (and IMHO, will be impossible) to find actual contemporaneous reports that fail to clear up the ambiguity.
Blue Neponset
5. Yes
6. No
I would change “Saddam Hussein had WMD, was developing WMD, or wanted to develop WMD, and this was no longer acceptable”
to:
Saddam Hussein had or would soon have WMD, and this was no longer acceptable
If I remember correctly the reason we couldn’t wait for the inspectors to finish their search was because of the imminent threat Saddam and his weapons posed. Colin Powell went to the UN with pictures of mobile germ/bio warfare factories. It seems to me Powell brought those pictures because he believed the mobile factors either already had or soon would produce gem/bio WMD. The Administration didn’t bring blueprints of those factories they were claiming they existed.
Retief
The first six was better. We don’t know what they believed only what they said. What they said was that the smoking gun might be a mushroom cloud.
gratefulcub
New line of defense/attack is popping up, and it is a good one.
IF KR did it, I’m glad he did. Somebody had to out Joe Wilson.
Fox’s John Gibson – I say give Karl Rove a medal, even if Bush has to fire him. Why? Because Valerie Plame should have been outed by somebody. And if nobody else had the cojones to do it, I’m glad Rove did
p.lukasiak
No. You are nitpicking. If there is a step that states ‘Karl Rove was just trying to correct the record,” then you can have an aneurysm.
well, given the vast variety of facts that we could be agreeing on, if you aren’t going to give us a “correcting the record” step, one wonders why it is so important that we establish as “fact” that there were erroneous reports of the OVP directly asking Wilson to go.
seriously, we know why I’m concerned about this “fact”…. its remarkably consistent with current White House spin. Why are you so concerned with establishing it as a fact?
Tom Johnson
No on #5. It is still weasel-words. “Not asked directly by the Office of the Vice President” is an attempt to impeach the credibility of Joesph Wilson.
I fail to see how what “some” of the press mis-reported is relevant to the a factual account of this case.
If you want to question Joesph Wilson’s credibility, then go ahead and do it directly. I’ll argue that on the next thread.
No on #6. “The administration and others believed” presents it as if there was a single mindset within the administration and elsewhere. The truth is likely far more complicated.
Portions of the administration certainly believed Iraq had WMD…but there were conflicts in the intelligence for sure. The administration presented the intelligence as if there were no conflicts and everyone was unified in their belief of the threat of Saddam Hussein.
ET
Question: Are these the points that we should be debating?
Wilson went to investigate the Niger story – at whose behest is beside the point with regards to how outed his wife.
Wilson came back. His claims were not exactly in line with administration claims.
Someone outed his wife. Outing a CIA operative is not legal. It is investigated. Investigation is compliated (as most are) and leads to new questions none of which involved (or should involve) the whys of Wilson going over and at whose behest – none of which have anything to do with Wilson’s conculusions or anything he said with regards to the Niger story. Someone within the government is the most likely to know that Plame was CIA – so the person(s) most likely to have passed her name to the press were government officials.
I know because of the people involved and the fact that this is Washington that this was likely to get politicized, but the fact that a CIA agent was outed is the point.
Defense Guy
Bush’s speech to the UN stating the case for war.
Here
Bush’s SOTU speech in January 2003 – 2 months before the resumption of hostilities.
Here
Steve
No, I can’t provide any more from the ABC story, what I’ve got is what I’ve got. It seems the media managed to consistently muddle this issue (why shouldn’t they, no one knew it would be a big deal), even if Wilson himself kept his story straight and tried to explain.
Tony Alva
Yes.
No.
The main rationale for going to war in Iraq was Saddam’s inability to adhere to the terms of the surrender agreement from the first Gulf War, and failure to comply with UN imposed sanctions, inspections, etc…
His arrogance in the face of his situation, the fact that the world was wearing on holding up sanctions, and about to relieve him of them (easy to see why given the sweetheart deals going on with our now adverse “friends” in Europe) was what created the urgency to push him to the ultimatum point. If he had been successful wearing out the international community on the sanctions, it would have rendered our diplomacy and the entire UN irrelevant (hard to beleive anybody still thinks the UN is relivent).
The WMD stuff, while over hyped, foolish, and a poor PR move during the SOTU address and subsequent displays at the UN, was only the dumbed down sales pitch to Americans for the more complex rationale noted above.
My thoughts…
Tim F
Thanks Def Guy. We know of dozens of excuses offered by the admin as to why war was desirable. You can likely find ten or more in those speeches. WRT John’s statement #6 none of that matters. It’s only the imminent threat angle that made war necesasry.
Mr Furious
Yes and yes
Defense Guy
Tim F
You are welcome. The only reason I posted those links was to offer up the justifications used by Bush in his own words at the time they were made. Interpretations, as always, are up to the individual making them.
Tim F
So Tony is arguing that we needed to invade because Iraq disrespected the UN. By that logic Bush should have invaded John Bolton.
Seriously, we’ve got UN scofflaws all over the planet. Maybe Tony forgot we were busy fighting another war at the time, a war against terror. Opening another front just to make one UN scofflaw behave looks, in sober reflection, to be mind-numbingly stupid.
Darrell
Speaking of “mind-numbingly stupid”, you present yourself as Exhibit A. Saddam was not just another “UN scofflaw”, he had violated, on repeated occassions over a 12 year period of time, his BINDING 1991 terms of surrender. Violation of terms of surrender = full justification to resume hostilities
Other UN ‘scofflaws’ such as the pile of ridiculous UN resolutions condemning Israel, for example, are NON-BINDING resolutions. just thought you might want to know
Tim F
Grrr. Darrel mad. Think about this for a bit longer this time. We were already fighting a war. Terror, remember? Bad guys with beards. It seems a bit odd that we’d need the balance of our military might to fight guys who milk their own goats, but that’s how it is. If the only problem with Iraq was that they violated UN resolutions then maybe we could have waited until we’d, I don’t know, won the war on terror first?
Think hard about this Darrell. You’re saying that the war on terror is less important than UN resolutions against some harmless despot. That makes you sound like the worst sort of loony-lib caricature.
Defense Guy
Saddam Hussein a harmless despot? Do you really believe that?
JG
Then why did we wait so long?
Prior to 9/11 no one in this country would have swallowed the wmd iminent threat rationale. Bush used our 9/11 feelings to do what everyone in the country knew was going to happen once we got a republican president. Remove Saddam. WMD was the justification they were looking for.
Tim F
Work through the logic. Tony says that we invaded because of UN violations rather than because of WMD allegations. If the problem is that Saddam had WMDs then he could have just answered ‘yes’ and spared us the trouble. So, if the primary concern is that Saddam violated UN sanctions and not that he presented a clear and present danger, then Tony cares more about UN regulations than he does about the war on terror. That makes Tony, and now Darrell, a loony-lib caricature.
Turn the question around. Knowing what you do now, def guy, do you believe that Saddam presented an imminent threat to the world? Honestly?
Darrell
Note the mentality so prevalent on the left:
Yes yes, Saddam in their whacked out kook mentality, is merely a “harmless despot” and the Baathist terrorists were are fighting are “guys who milk their own goats”
How do you have a rational conversation with people like this? answer: you can’t, because they are not rational people
Darrell
I wish we would have taken him out in 91, or at the first sign of violations of his surrender terms months later. Iraqi regime change became official US policy in 1998 under Clinton. At that time, Iraq had ADMITTED to UNSCOM to having 3.9 tons of Vx and hundreds of tons of weaponized chems which were NEVER accounted for before he kicked out inspectors in 98. So after 9/11, with this, plus Saddam’s terrorist ties and undermining of sanctions, we’re supposed to just let him keep on getting away with it?
Also, since terrorism was not limited to Afghanistan, we needed to do something to overturn the corrupt oppressive order in the Middle east and hope that freedom spreads
Tim F
Grr. More mad Darrell. The ‘milk their own goats’ line was a jab at AQ and the Taliban. They’re a global threat, and they live in caves. It would be funny if it wasn’t true. Ha ha.
Surprise, Darrell didn’t get it. Darrell uses the bizarre term ‘Baathist terrorists,’ suggesting that the one somehow had anything to do with the other. That in turn suggests that there’s a lot of work to do before Darrell and the real world get within shouting distance. Not my job. See you on the next thread.
Tony Alva
Tim F,
I’m offering my thoughts to the discussion in civil manner. No need to be a douche bag about not agreeing with me.
“Tony says that we invaded because of UN violations rather than because of WMD allegations.”
That’s not what I said at all. What I said was…
The WMD stuff, while over hyped, foolish, and a poor PR move during the SOTU address and subsequent displays at the UN, was only the dumbed down sales pitch to Americans for the more complex rationale noted above.
It’s not a “rather” thing.
Iraq stands out from the other UN scofflaws because we had actually engaged in war with them in the recent past which led to a declaration of surrender with terms and conditions attached. What we did was to remove a regime that was about to resume the vicious circle of despotism which would have perpetuated for a long time to come given the fact the guy had two psycho sons who were heir apparents. I for one am glad him and his sons are gone. Was I surprised by what happened once we tossed his ass out. Yep, and I’m not afraid to admit so much. I still think it was the right idea. I do not think efforts in Iraq are hindering the war on terror on other fronts, and if you do, than simply make your case.
Saddam did in fact get over on us and has admitted so much. No, he may not have actually had WMD, but he used the fact that everybody thought he did to it’s full fear potential. Actually, a very smart approach and perhaps the only decent tactical move the guy ever made except he didn’t count on us to call his bluff
Sojourner
Absolutely not true. The American people didn’t support this war because of Hussein’s failure to comply with the UN. They supported it because Bush, Cheney and Rice spent a whole lot of time on TV talking about not waiting until the mushroom cloud appeared.
The American people wanted al Qaeda blood. It took a whole lot of fearmongering to divert their attention to Iraq. Why do you think Rove went after Wilson and Plame? Because Wilson’s report contradicted their carefully crafted house of cards. If it were only a matter of UN sanctions, Wilson’s report wouldn’t have mattered.
JG
How can anyone say Saddam wasn’t a harmless despot? We’ve been starving his regime for 12 years, only a tenth of his army fought for him, we took over his country in a week and found him hiding in a hole in the ground. Don’t try to pretend he was a threat. That was in the eighties. What he was before the war was an inflated Tony Soprano. A gangster running a country who felt he deserved more respect. He flaunted the UN sanctions because thats all he could do and maintain any kind of dignity. We could not allow him to continue to control the black gold and we certainly couldn’t let him get the bomb. That gets him a seat at the big boys table. Can’t have that. All the rest is Wookie noise.
Defense Guy
Saddam was surely not harmless to the Iraqi’s having to live under his regime. He wasn’t harmless to the Iranians or to the Kuwatis or the Saudis. He wasn’t harmless to the Israeli’s, nor to the pilots tasked with patrolling the no-fly zone. He was a murderous thug and the world will be a better place now that he is gone.
If we are to speculate, and we must, then I think he would have done anything to hurt our citizens or anyone who threatened the power that he craved.
Do we really want to start making the argument that despotic genocidal tyrants aren’t a threat if the threat doesn’t apply to us specifically? Is it really ok for us to say as long as we have the freedoms that we demand that it’s ok that others don’t simply because they are not fortunate enough to have been born or found their way to a western country? I won’t sign up for that plan.
Sojourner
Absolutely, if that was the primary rationale for the war.
JG
Saddam was contained. Your description of him fits in the eighties not 2003. I’m not saying the world isn’t better off with him in prison. I certainly agree with that. I don’t agree that US Military power should be used to free oppressed people. The president, just like some previous world leaders, created a belief in the average citizens mind that a country was on the verge of attacking us so that we would agree to go on the offensive against that country. Thats wrong. I was with the war until I realized they inflated the threat to play into our 9/11 hysteria. Now I’m against it but please don’t assume I’m calling for a pullout.
Jeff
Too late probably, but this Blitzer interview with Rice confirms that at least one person was suggesting that the VP sent Wilson on his mission
http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/transcripts/wolfrice.htm
BLITZER: But 11 months earlier, you, the Bush administration, had sent Joe Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador to Niger, to find out whether it was true. He came back, reported to the CIA, reported to the State Department, it wasn’t true, it was bogus. The whole issue was bogus. And supposedly, you never got word of his report.
RICE: Well, first of all, I didn’t know Joe Wilson was going to Niger. And if you look at Director Tenet’s statement, it says that counterproliferation experts on their own initiative sent Joe Wilson, so I don’t know…
BLITZER: Who sent him?
RICE: Well, it was certainly not a level that had anything to do with the White House, and I do not believe at a level that had anything to do with the leadership of the CIA.
BLITZER: Supposedly, it came at the request of the vice president.
RICE: No, this is simply not true, and this is something that’s been perpetuated that we simply have to straighten out.
The vice president did not ask that Joe Wilson go to Niger. The vice president did not know. I don’t think he knew who Joe Wilson was, and he certainly didn’t know that he was going.
The first that I heard of Joe Wilson mission was when I was doing a Sunday talk show and heard about it.
The other thing is that the reporting, at least, of what Ambassador Wilson told the CIA debriefers says that, yes, Niger denied that there had been such a deal made, that they had sold uranium to the Iraqis.
It also apparently says, according to this report, it also apparently says that one of the people who was meeting with the Iraqis thought that they might, in fact, be trying to use commercial activity to talk about yellow cake.
So what the director says in his statement is that they believed, when they looked at what was reported about the Wilson trip, that it was inconclusive. They therefore did not brief it to the president, the vice president or any senior officials.
So no, the Wilson trip was not sent by anyone at a high level. It wasn’t briefed to anyone at high level. And it appears to have been inconclusive in what it found.s
The Disenfranchised Voter
NO
There is irrefutable proof that key figures in the Bush Administration KNEW that Saddam wasn’t even a threat to his neighbors, let alone the US.
The Disenfranchised Voter
NO
There is irrefutable proof that key figures in the Bush Administration KNEW that Saddam wasn’t even a threat to his neighbors, let alone the US.
and
Clearly these two knew that Saddam didn’t have WMD and that he wasn’t a threat. I find it hard to believe that neither Powell, nor Rice expressed these opinions to the other members.
c j murpht
hey i need 2 thingd one is wilsons bio and web page info, the 2nd thing who signed the order for that moron to go in the 1st place?Thank you in advance if you reply to my request