It's about freedom now

Just in case we forget:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." Dick Cheney Speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002.

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." George W. Bush Speech to U.N. General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002.[ii]

"We know they have weapons of mass destruction … There isn't any debate about it." [It is] beyond anyone's imagination" that U.N. inspectors would fail to find such weapons if they were given the opportunity. Donald Rumsfeld, September 2002.[iii]

"If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world." Ari Fleischer Press Briefing, Dec. 2, 2002.[iv]

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there." Ari Fleischer Press Briefing, Jan. 9, 2003.[v]

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more." Colin Powell Remarks to U.N. Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003.[vi]

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." George W. Bush Radio Address, Feb. 8, 2003.[vii]

"So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad?... I think our judgment has to be clearly not." Colin Powell Remarks to U.N. Security Council, March 7, 2003.[viii]

“Does Saddam now have weapons of mass destruction? Sure he does. We know he has chemical weapons. We know he has biological weapons. . . Defense Policy Board Chair, Richard Perle, speaking to a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee hearing, March, 2003. [ix]

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." George W. Bush Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003. [x]

"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly... all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes." Ari Fleisher Press Briefing, March 21, 2003[xi]

"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction." Gen. Tommy Franks Press Conference, March 22, 2003. [xii]

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." Donald Rumsfeld ABC Interview, March 30, 2003. [xiii]

"I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there " Colin Powell Remarks to Reporters, May 4, 2003. [xiv]

Thanks Alterman

 

I know. Now go read the Downing Street Memos. They were not only lying, they KNEW that they were lying.

Thing is, many Americans suspected it AT THE TIME.

 

It wasn't just Republicans who believed the intelligence!

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

 

As Andy Taylor once said to Opie, "Now wait a minue here, let's be fair about this thing," so say I, to wit:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."--Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."--Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."--Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."--Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."--Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"In 1991, the world collectively made a judgment that this man should not have weapons of mass destruction. And we are here today in the year 2002 with an un-inspected four-year interval during which time we know through intelligence he not only has kept them, but he continues to grow them. The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new."--Sen. John Kerry, Oct. 9, 2002


"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."--Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."--Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."--Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."--Letter to President Bush, signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."-- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force; our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."-- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."--- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct.9, 1998

 

Looks like Kansas Baptist and I have been on the same wave length, ha! "Git 'er done," Kansas Baptist!

 

Good points kansasbabtist and Rev Clifton. Makes you kind of wonder what the heck the CIA is doing all day.

I guess my problem here is that no one ever admits to screwing up anymore. With spin doctors and PR people handling political positions, all you ever get is changing messages.
We went in on wrong assumptions/"intelligence'". Admit it -don't lie about it or wrap the flag around it.

 

Others as well....

It wasn't just us. Others, including France and Germany thought he had it. Germany actually sent people to jail for selling prohibited items to Saddam. I have read the Downing Sreet memo and contrary to popular belief the unverified copy of a another document does not say he did not have WMD. It says others had more (duh, the USA, Russia, China, Israel, France and the UK all have FAR more, we just haven't used it as often) and it does say the USA was cherry picking intelligence to make their case but it DOES NOT say he didn't have any........

 

Kahn, you got that right. The Republican administration botched it and refuses to fess up. I understand why they don't want to, but that doesn't make it right.

It seems one of our biggest problems is that we have become incapable of seeing beyond our own partisan views. If one side or the other were to admit to a screw-up, imagine the aftermath of such a revelation. Anyone remember the ridiculous waste of time, money, and resources on Bill's issues?

Here is Kansas (and this is a simplistic summary), the legislature passed a school funding bill that the school boards believed were inadequate. Long story short, it went to the Kansas supreme court, who struck down the bill and dictated the amount that the legislature would spend.

Of course every politician had something to say about authority of the court. A poll was taken and as you would imagine, every Democrat agreed the court was within its limits and every Republican agree that the court overstepped its authority. Not a single dissenter from either side.

No one really seems to care about what is right or good for our country, only making sure they walk the party line in order to secure their campaign funding. It is the DNC and the RNC that run American politics.

 

I often wonder if world wide intelligence stopped being top notch after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Perhaps, at least the United States and some of Europe, felt there really were no more threats to national security.

 

Sure they did. But when the REST of the world wanted to let the weapons inspectors FINISH their work before invading, the President and his lap dog at 10 Downing Street chose to rush in instead.

And they did so because they KNEW that the weapons inspectors were likely to find no WMD thus depriving them of the excuse to invade.

 

Let me ask you something, Nosborne. Then, once WMD has been discarded, what do you think is the real reason why the US invaded Irak?

 

Well, my dear Mr. Nosborne, WMD's WERE found:

http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/05/11/World/Investigative.Reportsaddams.Wmd.Have.Been.Found-670120.shtml

As far as your "lap dog" comment, Mr. Blair was reelected to his third term. I guess most Brits are lap dogs, huh?

Maybe I should apologize. Perhaps you were speaking about Monica Lewinsky.

Did you cry out so much when Clinton bombed Iraq, the Sudan, and Bosnia?

Just to get a jump on anyone, I supported Clinton's intervention into "Yugoslavia." It was not a political issue, it was a moral issue: the salvation of humanity!

 

The weapons inspectors ...

The weapons inspectors had been kicked out what, 2 or 3 times. Saddam didn't finally agree to let them return until US and UK troops were on his doorstep. There had been approximately 7 UN resolutions ordering Iraq to disarm, some of them repeating themselves. France and Russia were actively working to get what sanctions were left lifted.

You assume they knew he didn't have them. Fact, most people thought he had them and you refuse to accept that because it doesn't fit your agenda. Sorry, every major country in the world thought he had them and even those who now admit he didn't agree he would have tried to get them once sanctions were lifted. Takes a couple of weeks to cook up or brew NA or bio weapons. No mean trick.

Give me a break, Saddam had played people like a master and he had to go. That isn't even debatable....

 

Re: The weapons inspectors ...

And master manipulator he was:

http://www.flipsideshow.com/Documents/HOW%20SADDAM%20MANIPULATES%20THE%20US%20MEDIA.doc

 

Nosborne isn't answering, and I assume that he certainly has his own opinion about this question and will answer.....

In the meantime, here's MY answer to such a question:

1. The need to "finish the job" that Daddy Bush started (i.e., leaving Saddam in power after the first Gulf War was a huge mistake when at that time we had a powerful coalition and nearly global support for our military actions in the area)

2. The existence of even one "torture center" would have been justification enough - as it is, there were dozens if not hundreds of them

3. The general crimes against humanity perpetrated by Saddam and his henchmen against Kurds, Kuwaitis, and Shi'ites.

4. A chance to show the entire Arab world that we can take down one of their most powerful states with little or no effort or serious loss of life to our own forces. This is a powerful message, and should have been played up more than we did.

My main problem with the invasion of Iraq and the way the Bush team has handled it has to do with their not listening to the professional military officers (i.e., the Pentagon and the generals) as to the size of force required to do the job effectively. Thus we have had more casualties and the aftermath of the war has been a quagmire for us. I am also somewhat appalled that we have not had the guts to use the same kind of overwhelming force/response to the insurgency in Iraq that we did time and time again to villages and towns in Europe during WWII. Carpet bombing, fire bombing, massive bombardments, and heavy loss of civilian life do a lot to break the enemy's will to continue the fight. Instead we pussyfoot around everyone fearful of any collateral damage when that is the very nature of war - to inflict pain and suffering on the enemy, his resources, and his population.

 

What Carl said, for the most part.

Also, what seems to be emerging in Iraq is some sort of democratic state, "if they can keep it"(which I doubt).

I think that there is a certain amount of neo conservative agenda application here. A genuinely democratic Iraq will inspire other Arab states to reform. That, it may be thought, will undercut the support Muslim terrorist groups get from these states and their populations.

Well, it's an idea. Maybe even correct?

 

Yeah, sure. So why isn't the Administration shouting this "news" from the housetops?

They lied. They KNEW they were lying. They lied with a precise PURPOSE.

If you can't accept this, too bad. That's how it is. I eschew "faith-based" political "news".

Now. Were they RIGHT to lie? That is an entirely different question.

Even before 9/11, this country was attacked, often effectively, by Muslim terrorist groups. The Marines in Lebanon. The U.S.S. Cole. The first World Trade Center bombing. The Saudi Arabian housing bomb. President Clinton understood what was going on; he made ineffectual and sometimes mistaken military responses. The first President Bush certainly understood. The present President Bush came into office knowing what was going on.

But how, exactly, do you defeat this kind of fairly low level but deadly and more or less continuous assault? You can't tolerate it; 9/11 showed that it can suddenly grow to monsterous proportions. You don't have a particular country behind it all unless you admit that Saudi Arabia really is the source of the money and people and even if you DO admit that, the Saudi government seems to be doing what it can to stop it. (I guess.)

So the President looked for a doctrine that would provide at least some sort of answer: He found it, I think, in the neo conservative theory that ultimate security lies in democratizing the Muslim world. Give them freedom which begets hope which counters terrorist ideology.

I can't read the President's mind but this sort of thing crops up in his speeches from time to time. And his actions seem consistant with this view.

Well, I personally have serious doubts about the ability of the Arab Middle East to liberalize and democratize but really, that is as much the result of my personal animosity as any actual evidence. I know of NO evidence on the point.

I will say for the neocon approach that I don't have anything BETTER to offer; indeed, I don't have anything ELSE to offer. It really isn't practical (or moral or likely effective) to reduce to rubble the cities of any country that contains Muslim terrorists; for one thing, they exist HERE in the U.S!

Choosing Iraq makes a sort of sense as well; it wouldn't infuriate the surrounding Arab kleptocracies,. it really WAS a horrible and hideous regime so there's a certain moral justification, even if there's no LEGAL justification, the country seemed weak enough to collapse as it in fact did and finally, unlike other Arab states, Iraq actually had a sort of history and understanding of the working of a modern, democratic state. In other words, the neocon experiment would succeed in Iraq if it could succeed anywhere. Plus, Saddam shot at his Daddy. You know, the PERSONAL touch?

So if the President were to call me up and ask me, I'd have to say that what he's doing is probably the only course available to him.

 

That's quite a leap, Nosborne. It's also a bit of revisionist history, I think.

It's indisputable that WMD programs were found after the first Gulf War. Not only were they found, but they were far more extensive and far more advanced than anyone had suspected. Saddam had been able to hide his activities very well. He was very close to producing a nuclear weapon, for example.

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/iraq2~1.htm

(I encourage Jews like yourself and supporters of Israel to think deeply about the implications of this.)

After these extremely unsettling 1991 discoveries, a continuing inspections regime was put into place. But Saddam was never entirely cooperative and he definitely appeared to be a man with something to hide.

I suspect that he wanted the world to think that he probably had WMD. That fear (in us) and hope (in the Arab world) guaranteed that he remained an international player and it allowed him to pose as the Muslim world's white knight, the one man capable of standing up to the imperial might of the US and ultimately staring it down.

The Clinton administration certainly thought that Saddam remained a serious threat. They maintained (and expanded) no-fly zones over Iraq. US fighter planes flew combat air patrols over that country daily for the eight years of Clinton's administration. US and other forces stopped and inspected Iraqi trade. Periodically we fired cruise missiles (sometimes lots of them) at targets in Iraq. That's not exactly peace.

It also appears that the US, Israel and Britain (and probably others) were receiving human intelligence about continuing Iraqi WMD programs. Unfortunately, the US intelligence agencies had been fixated on the Warsaw Pact until the collapse of communism, and we didn't have many Arabic-speaking agents. Certainly nobody well placed in Iraqi secret projects. So we were uncomfortably reliant on information that Iraqi exile groups were feeding us, and it seems in retrospect that they were trying to steer us towards overthrowing Saddam for them. It's possible that the Israelis (who did emphasize the Arab world and who had good sources there) were trying to use us in the same way.

So here it was, going on ten years. Iraq couldn't be embargoed for eternity. The quasi-war situation couldn't be a permanent condition. The Iraqi people were suffering. (But Saddam was't. He was building dozens of lavish palaces in a world-class burst of megalomania. And he kept his palaces and their grounds off-limits arms inspections.) World opinion was tilting towards sympathy with Iraq. Pressure was building on us to back off and to leave Iraq alone.

It's easy to say that we should have waited for the arms inspectors to complete their job. But they had already been on that job for ten fucking years. They had found nothing of interest. International patience was running out on us, and our patience was running out on the inspectors. I imagine that Washington felt that they were essentially a bunch of international bureaucrats who just wanted to quiet things down and to sweep unpleasant problems under Middle Eastern rugs.

Meanwhile we knew for a fact that Saddam had been working like a demon on WMD before the first Gulf War. We knew that he could hide his tracks very well. We had humint telling us that he had reconstituted some secret projects. We had Saddam acting as evasive as he could possibly make himself appear. ... And then we had 9-11. I think that Washington just said 'screw this, let's just end it'.

 

How come no one came up with the most evident reason, the oil thing?

I think you´re right. It was Fukuyama, a renowned neoconservative who said that we are at the end of history, and that the struggle among ideologies would settle on liberal democracies. Neocons believe that those Muslims nations, if they are to survive, they need to embrace capitalism and democracy. I think Fukuyama is right, even though Huntington believes that ideological conflict died only to give way to civilizations clash (the strongest imposing its ideology on the others). These arguments are previous to 9/11. In any case, the US Foreign Policy reflects both views as it seems they have been acting to maintain the supremacy of the US in any possible field (and the number one competitor is probably China), whether favoring or imposing it. Neocons can be accussed of anything, but they are honest to death. They have been writing letters regarding these issues for years, and they are just following through. They haven´t deviated not even a milimeter from their plans.

That was written in 1997 by the PNAC. I think Irak´s invasion is a simple implementation of this policy. Period. The WMD was the only point where the different ideologies, interests and lobbies that surround the Pres. of the US converged (we all had seen those images of Kurds assassinated by Saddam´s chemical weapons, and it was REASONABLE to assume the bastard had more). I do believe they wanted as well to help Iraq be democratic as a way to strengthen US security (Iraqi dissidents have been begging for years!), and also for genuine moral values, but I also believe the US had other goals not as noble as this one. But that´s a different story.