My comment on weapons inspections was due to: 1. the size of Iraq, 2. the dishonesty of Hussein, and 3. the cruelty of Hussein. As President Bush said, the UN sanctions were not meant to allow for a scavenger hunt. You seem to get great joy in throwing the word "lie" around. That troubles me greatly. This was a high stakes matter. Intel was surely contradictory. The clock was ticking. Every day that went by enabled a greater likelihood of another 9/11. If YOU were responsible for defending the US from foreign attack, you wouldn't have the luxury of being the armchair quarterback you are being here and now. There was a kind of "history" but nothing like 9/11 and NEVER on American soil.
Actually, we did have that luxury at the time, and we were right, you were wrong, and it has later been shown that we were deliberately misled in the process. None of this is controversial, use the search function for more information.
You start out by saying when a country is attacked has the right to fight back but how is attacking a country that didn't attack us count as fighting back? Yes the Taliban where harboring the people who attacted bus but there's been no solid evidence that Saddam's regime attacked us. It comes down to you and the Admin's estimation which isn't the same as self-defense.
Saddam's Iraq was guilty of terrorism against his own people. They were enemies of the US. Yes, there was no history of his aiding terrorists against the US, but who wants to wait for their to be a first time and then to act? Left unchecked it is very likely that Saddam would have been willing to "pile on" after 9/11. If nothing else, Saddam would have been AQ's own target and then we truly would have had a terrorist state in the ME. Better us to oust him and forge a new government than to let bin Laden's minions have a run at it.
Better a scavenger hunt which inspectors believe would have been useful, than to start a war costing hundreds of thousands of lives. I'm for one am not comfortable starting a war because GW Bush doesn't believe the way things or going, follow the technical way the original agreements were set up. Going to war over a technicality when there ARE OTHER OPTIONS is ridiculous. To defend it is also rediculous. Do you or do you not belive that war should always be a LAST RESORT? I don't enjoy it. What puzzles me is you seem more concerned with people who present evidence and prove that lies were told, than you do with our leaders actually telling the lies. I for one am ashamed to have an administration that loses an honesty contest with Saddam Hussein. I know all politicians lie, but to lose to Saddam is pitiful. If nobody in the administration had lied, and it had all been mistaken beliefs that would be one thing. However the evidence now shows that in instance after instance they did in fact tell lies. If you think that makes me happy, you are wrong. It also makes me sad when you don't worry about the liar, but the person who calls them a liar. It isn't archair quarterbacking when people and military officials at the time were warining about all the things that have come to pass. Most of the officials who disagreed with the President and his cabinet were fired, demoted, and in some cases trashed through the media. History shows that the punishment was given to those who proved to be correct. To those that were wrong like Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, etc. They were never held accountable, and in when possible given promotions. That shows me that this administration has failed to learn from their mistakes. You wrong that everyday that went by enabled a greater liklihood of 9/11. At least that wasn't the case from Iraq. There was no likilhood of anything like that from Iraq, and certainly not with the no fly zones, boxing Saddam in, and inspectors running around all over the nation with 9/11. History has again shown that to be correct. Now other nations might perhaps have been a bigger threat, and were certainly bigger supporters of Al Qaeda, and other organizations which actually threatened the U.S. That has been shown to be true also, but our administration's attention was not on Liberia, or other nations like that. They didn't succeed on American soil but they did try to attack on American soil. They also had the information speaking of plans of future attacks.
I've shown you instances where it proved to be the truth. Aluminum tubes- Saddam was the one being honest, while our administration was being dishonest. Nuclear development - Saddam was being honest while our administration was being dishonest. Other WMD's - Saddam was being honest while our administration was being dishonest. I'm sorry if you can't keep up with that, but I am providing examples of what actually happened. You are welcome to try and disprove any of those examples, or perhaps face up to the fact that our administration shamed us, or ignore it all together. Again I'm not saying that Saddam wasn't a liar. Just in the case leading up to this war, there was a bigger liar, and it is hurtful for me to have to admit that. But the evidence leads to that conclusion.
Saddam was a liar and a killer for about 3 decades. That's what I can't keep up with. How does one know when to start believing him? Again, the intel was not definitive. It could be cut both ways. Anyone would promote the intel that supported their decision. Only time will prove it right or wrong to satisfy the critics. Only years passing will allow history to judge the merits of the decisions.
I get a little tired of arguing about whether it was right to invade Iraq since its already happened and its a fact. I will leave it at this. I opposed the invasion not because I thought the Admin. lied and not even because I totally disagree with your reasoning. From what I was seeing was that we were fighting one war already with the outcome still in doubt vs. an intractable enemy hidden throughout the world. We need cooperation of many countries and invading Iraq wasn't a popular move and one guarenteed to inflame passions against us. Also while there was much evidence pointing to Saddam being a gathering threat most of that seemed highly questionable. Plus Iraq was always going to be difficult to occupy and control. Everything to me looked like we were invading Iraq with questionable benefits and high potential costs. The benefits didn't strike me as being worth the costs and still don't. I didn't think we should've left Saddam alone and believed continued contaiment and vigilance was needed. Yes that would've had its own cost but interms of money, regional stability and lives I think it would've been less. As far as we needed to liberate Iraq for democracy well then we need to liberate the Sudan, Turkmenistan, Chad, Liberia, the Congo and so on.. I don't believe in the Wilsonian ideal of American burden to bring democracy and if we took it seriously that would be a recipe for almost endless war. People are funny that even if something is good for them they still resent outsiders forcing it upon them.
Just wanted to point out that every day still enables a likelihood of another 9/11. Our own intel and even the Admin. now still says that even after invading Afghanistan and Iraq that there is likelihood of another attack, possibly more, than we were right after 9/11.
I agree that Saddam was a liar for decades, and probably his entire political career. I would never say otherwise, and we should never have just believed him. Anything we agreed to we should have maintaned the ability to verify. That is what the inspectors were doing, and what even more U.S. intel officers could have done, had we pursued those options instead of the military invasion because of those options. I would never contend that Saddam wasn't a liar or a bad guy. But as far as the U.S. and the dishonesty it isn't just a matter of the intel going both ways. The recently released memo shows that the administration was fixing the intel to fit around the policy of military invasion. That doesn't mean they didn't still believe that there would be some WMD's there. But it does show that they were willing to lie to get what they wanted. What they wanted was war. Condi Rice definitely lied when she claimed the aluminum tubes could really only have one purpose. Everyone in the world including the IAEA had already stated that wasn't the case, but Rice said it anyway. G.W. Bush lied when he claimed that an IAEA report said Iraq was within 6 months of nukes. Then he lied more when trying to cover up for the fact that no such report existed. The fact that Saddam is such a big liar, but in the case of this war, The Bush administration was a bigger one is very sad to me. Furthermore if the Bush administration was truly just using mistaken intel, and not trying to conform the intel to their desired goal why would they fire and attack through the media the ones that got the intel right while rewarding the ones who got it wrong? Nobody has even attempted to answer that question.
Well 9/11 was kind of a turning point. No more secrets. No more holding back. Every thing at stake is ratcheted up when desperate.
9/11 doesn't change the difference between right and wrong. Torture is still wrong. Imprisoning someone and not allowing them a chance to defend themselves is still wrong. Starting war that is not in self-defense or a last resort is still wrong. Rewarding those who make mistakes while punishing those that were correct is still wrong.
I don't think we have enough historical perspective to denote right and wrong. I'm throwing in with the administration; you're not. Be nice and AQ will kill you anyway-- in fact you've just made it easier for them. Our enemy does not identify themselves in the conventional way, so we are forced to "identify" enemy combatants. This is a very tough job and mistakes are bound to be made. If we focus on that, we hand another advantage over to our enemy. The war was started in self-defense. You just don't see or agree with the perspective. That's fine. Aren't you glad you can?
I was referencing the terrorists. You act surprised that there is a greater risk of another US attack post 9/11 while I am contending that that is exactly what is to be expected. They have thrown their first punch on US soil. Do you really think they will now just disappear into the mist. Our contending with them didn't have anything to do with expecting them to pull off a second attack on our soil. Their "secret" was out of the bag. They had attacked on our soil and they would try to again.
Except that the point of going into Afghanistan, Iraq, the homeland security department and every thing else was to make us safer and we're still hearing every day even from the Admin. that we're not much safer and even likely less safe than 9/11. Of course I didn't expect Al Qaeda to be wiped out but what's the point of any of these actions if they aren't going to make us safer?
What timeline were you given or are you allowing? We have stirred up a hornet's nest. The enemy is desperate so they last out exhaustivelly. THey will run out of zealots. They are asking people to kill themselves for something unattainable. The citizens of Iraq will more aggressively turn on them, too.
