• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

Lame. Real lame.

What's lamer is that Bush bashers brush this under the rug. The existence of WMD were 'Bush' lies. Forget about the fact that President Clinton said 'exactly the same thing' for years.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENAV_UoIfgc"]YouTube - President Clinton orders attack on Iraq[/ame]
 
Iraq had been non-compliant with UN resolutions going back over a decade before Bush decided to take him out.
And what exactly did those violations amount to? We are talking about sacrificing American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars for what? Oh he broke the rules. So? Did violating those U.N. resolutions make him a bona fide threat to the region, to the world....as Bush so aggressively marketed? No, they did not. Some of you seem to think that simply because we can, we should. Do you know what resolutions he actually violated and to what degree?

I personally wouldn't be surprised at all if there was a plan to go into Iraq right from the get go. Saddam violated one UN resolution after another for years and years reducing the UN to an impotent irrelevant powerless joke.
The U.N., by it's very nature, is an impotent, irrelevant, powerless joke. Again, what resolutions did he violate that warranted the destruction we wrought upon that country and all the American lives that were lost?

If Saddam just failed to cooperate and comply and attempted to just give off the appearance that he was far more dangerous then he turned out to have been that's his own dumbass fault as far as I'm concerned.
While he was not cooperative with U.N. inspectors in the end he conceded. The IAEA as well as our own CSG, CIA, and DIA could not with any certainty verify that there were any WMD's at all. In fact the CSG said they were convinced there weren't any and that Iraq was no immediate threat to the U.S. or her allies.

The war was not reasonable and not justified. I know, people like TD will get on here and say "the U.N. resolution, the U.N. resolution!" Reasonable men don't kill each other over the terms on a piece of paper. Reasonable men kill when they have to in order to protect someone or some thing. In this case, the response was unquestionably heavy handed and not necessary.

There are so many U.N. missions in which the U.S. chose not to send troops to support that warranted military action to save lives that were in imminent danger. But Iraq, well...Iraq that just HAD to be done.

Bush had been told by his people that there was almost no evidence of WMD's in Iraq. There was raw, unvetted intelligence and speculation coming from the intelligence community. He knew this when he told us we had to take action NOW to disarm Saddam because he was a threat to the world. It was a deliberate deception, he mislead this nation to war and he knew what he was doing. There are plenty of books documenting this, people are named.

Now you can choose to blow off these insiders who were involved and make all manner of excuses as to why you shouldn't pay them any attention, or you can look at the fact that we didn't find any WMD's. The CSG said they weren't there and they were dismissed. And guess what...they weren't there. All you have to do is look at the accounts that these people are telling, start checking dates, and listen to what Bush is saying to the public. It was a tragic, tragic series of events that even I was sucked into as an American citizen.
 
What's lamer is that Bush bashers brush this under the rug. The existence of WMD were 'Bush' lies. Forget about the fact that President Clinton said 'exactly the same thing' for years.

You Bush lovers don't understand relevancy, do you? Let's see, Clinton was prez thru '99. There were specific attacks, and threats, that Clinton responded to. Do you understand that? Iraq actually attacked something.

Now, Bush, unfortunately was prez from 2000 thru 2008. With me so far? Osama Bin Laden attacked us in 2001. Bush was supposed to go after him. And he did for a little bit. But, then that got too tiring and he was getting antsy to invade Iraq. Remember, he talked about this dream before he was president. So, using Clinton's reasons, which were valid during Clinton's time, he lied about Iraq having wmds in the face of evidence and all kind of experts saying the contrary.

Do you understand it better now? Iraq's WMDs were all dismantled when Bush was in office and he knew it.

And that is the story, in a nutshell, of how Bush The Liar got us into an unprovoked war.

Class dismissed. :2wave:
 
Class dismissed. :2wave:

Ah... when Clinton declared that Saddam's regime posed a nuclear, biological and chemical threat, he was basing his actions on solid and accurate intelligence. When Bush declared that Saddam's regime posed a nuclear, biological and chemical threat, he was lying. Got it.

:2wave:
 
Ah... when Clinton declared that Saddam's regime posed a nuclear, biological and chemical threat, he was basing his actions on solid and accurate intelligence. When Bush declared that Saddam's regime posed a nuclear, biological and chemical threat, he was lying. Got it.

Give that boy a Gold Star! :2wave:
 
Let's see, Clinton was prez thru '99. There were specific attacks, and threats, that Clinton responded to. Do you understand that? Iraq actually attacked something.

What was the specific attack that Clinton was responding to when he ordered air strikes against Iraq in 1998?
 
What's lamer is that Bush bashers brush this under the rug. The existence of WMD were 'Bush' lies. Forget about the fact that President Clinton said 'exactly the same thing' for years.

YouTube - President Clinton orders attack on Iraq

Don't even try to go here. This in no way exonerates Bush and is simply a smoke screen I see your side throw when you are against the ropes. You have to take the intel and information that was coming out of Iraq at the time that BUSH made his decision to invade.

And Clinton didn't say "Saddam has WMD's." He said we were attacking to degrade his capability to produce them. He said that Saddam wasn't cooperating with attempts to determine if he actually had WMD's. He said Saddam has used them in the past, and Clinton believed that he would use them again if he were allowed to obtain them.

All this was in 1998. Things had changed as of 2003. The IAEA and our CSG were urging restraint and vigorously advising against invasion. Our intelligence communities could not confirm that he had WMD's, period. There wasn't any solid evidence to support the claim that Saddam had WMD's. It was never presented to the U.S., it has still not been presented. If you look at what information was cited as "evidence" for justifying the invasion it was incredibly suspect at best.

So don't fall back on Bill Clinton to try and justify George Bush's actions. They are absolutely different times, different circumstances, and different responses. One does not vindicate the other. It matters not what Clinton said then, but what Bush did when he did it.
 
What was the specific attack that Clinton was responding to when he ordered air strikes against Iraq in 1998?

Who said Clinton was right in doing what he did? Further, Clinton's response was a far cry from Bush's. Did Clinton have the IAEA and his own advisers telling him "don't do this"?
 
All this was in 1998. Things had changed as of 2003.

Really?

Sen. Joseph Biden Liberal Democrat -Del., Sept 4, 2002 - If we wait for the danger from Saddham to become clear, it could be too late.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, Liberal Democrat - NY, Feb 5, 2003 - 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.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, Democrat -CT, Sept 4, 2002 - Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.
Iraq WMD

:2wave:
 
Really?

Iraq WMD

:2wave:

You're confusing ignorant politicians with the facts on the ground. What had changed was Saddams level of cooperation, was the fact that we had people in the intelligence community stating "we don't think they have WMD's and we don't think an invasion is warranted." At best you had raw, unvetted intel suggesting that Saddam had restarted his program, intel that was suspect and eventually proven to be false. Motivated by greed. Or you had theories. We never had any hard evidence, period. Who gives a crap what Hillary Clinton said? Our government failed us in this matter. And Bush was the man speaking the words. The White House ran a full blown campaign to justify this invasion and that involved pulling select members of Congress in and giving them just enough information to allow them to form an opinion. There are a number of literary works that describe this chain of events in detail, complete with names and statements to wit.

But again, I see you falling back on others to try and mitigate the lies and mistakes of George W. Bush. "But Joe said..." doesn't float. Joe got his info from the White House.
 
Last edited:
For those who continue the lame old argument that Bush was 'secretly' planning to oust Saddam before he took office, perhaps they should revisit the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which stated:

"It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to Iraq's foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime."

One could surmise that Congress was 'planning' Bush's strategy years before Bush was elected. Of course reasonable people examine the history, the context, and the perceived level of risk when presidents make difficult and controversial decisions. Partisans simply shout 'liar.'

:2wave:
 
For those who continue the lame old argument that Bush was 'secretly' planning to oust Saddam before he took office, perhaps they should revisit the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which stated:



One could surmise that Congress was 'planning' Bush's strategy years before Bush was elected. Of course reasonable people examine the history, the context, and the perceived level of risk when presidents make difficult and controversial decisions. Partisans simply shout 'liar.'

:2wave:

Well, here is the next fallback line of defense...invoke the Clinton Iraq Liberation Act. Reasonable people actually research the information they are going to post and don't leave out stuff like this...
The Act also said that:

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.

Section 4(a)(2) states:

The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for [Iraqi democratic opposition] organizations.

This in no way predicated Bush's act of war, utilizing U.S. forces. The intent of the act was to support regime change from within Iraq, not an invasion of Iraq.

What's next?
 
Last edited:
This in no way predicated Bush's act of war, utilizing U.S. forces. The intent of the act was to support regime change from within Iraq, not an invasion of Iraq.

What's next?

9/11 was next.

Followed by the Iraq War Resolution, approved with overwhelming majorities in both House and Senate, which authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

:2wave:
 
While he was not cooperative with U.N. inspectors in the end he conceded. The IAEA as well as our own CSG, CIA, and DIA could not with any certainty verify that there were any WMD's at all. In fact the CSG said they were convinced there weren't any and that Iraq was no immediate threat to the U.S. or her allies.

They could not confirm there were NO weapons and furthermore the weapons inspectors could not even confirm or offer assurance that Iraq was fully cooperating.
 
9/11 was next.
Sure it was, and Iraq had NOTHING to do with it.

Followed by the Iraq War Resolution, approved with overwhelming majorities in both House and Senate,
Approval gained from a very targeted campaign of misleading information and half truths at the very best and outright disinformation and pushing of bad intel at worst.
which authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate"
Which you think somehow makes this all okay, completely dismissing the fact that the invasion of Iraq wasn't "necessary or appropriate." He screwed up big time, pitching Congress and gaining their approval doesn't make this all go away.
in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq;
The national security of the United States was not in jeopardy. Please show me evidence otherwise.
and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
Again, you act as if this somehow makes what he did right, moral, and justified. It doesn't. The White House misled Congress and everyone else and the evidence absolutely substantiates the fact that Bush got it wrong, that there was no threat to our national security.

Look you can cite this stuff all day long, we all heard about it when it went down. It's been much debated. This is an overwhelming abundance of information available to us now, that was available to Bush back in the run up to the war, that would have reasonable men taking pause when considering such a costly decision. In fact it had numerous experts working in the Pentagon saying "stop, don't do this, it's not necessary." Bush made a very, very bad decision and it cost this nation, and the nation of Iraq, dearly.

:roll:
 
One could surmise that Congress was 'planning' Bush's strategy years before Bush was elected. Of course reasonable people examine the history, the context, and the perceived level of risk when presidents make difficult and controversial decisions. Partisans simply shout 'liar.'

Bush always wanted to invade Iraq. Find out yourself.

If you allowed yourself to read any of the books written about Bush, by his ex-staffers, or perhaps Jane Meyer's "The Dark Side" you would learn what we're talking about.

You could start here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/books/review/Brinkley-t.html

or

Book World: 'What Happened'

Listening to audio books while driving to and from work is a great way to get more books in.

And you know what? If you open yourself up to reading any of these books, nobody here will know. :cool:

Good luck!
 
They could not confirm there were NO weapons and furthermore the weapons inspectors could not even confirm or offer assurance that Iraq was fully cooperating.

Seriously, you have UN teams running around Iraq saying "don't invade, give us more time, they are cooperating, and we have yet to find any evidence of WMD's" and you are telling me that in your mind that's actually justification for the invasion? "We can't find any evidence of WMD's" just isn't good enough as "there are no WMD's." I see your logic, however given the very nature of the situation, it's not reasonable.

You are relying on the inspectors to prove a negative in order to NOT invade. You realize the flaw in that logic? "I think that guy has a gun, he's had a gun before and used it, I had to take that gun off him, he's a bad guy, that other cop is searching him and the perp is giving the cop a hard time, hmmm...I'm gonna pull my gun and shoot him, the guy isn't trustworthy, oh the other cop is saying 'hang on, he's cooperating now, I haven't found a gun yet but I'm not done searching,' oh yeah? well too bad, I warned this guy before that I better not catch him with a gun, and if that other cop can't tell me he doesn't have a gun I'm shooting him...BLAM!"

Are you familiar with the reports coming out of Iraq prior to the invasion?

Weapons Inspection Program. This is a compiled list of articles on the subject going all the way back to just before the invasion.
 
They could not confirm there were NO weapons and furthermore the weapons inspectors could not even confirm or offer assurance that Iraq was fully cooperating.

Plenty of experts from our country and others advised Bush and Cheney that they had evidence supporting their doubts that Iraq had WMDs. Joe Wilson, and another man, showed that Iraq didn't try to buy any yellow cake uranium. Gen. Richard A. Clark was a terror expert for three presidents. He saw there was no talking Bush out of it. He has a few books about Bush.

BushCo ignored all advice against taking us into a War of Choice!

You seem like an intelligent woman. Do you think all these people coming out of the woodwork are in a vast conspiracy? These are honorable people. Look for the proof yourself. It's out there.

Good luck!
 
You are relying on the inspectors to prove a negative in order to NOT invade. You realize the flaw in that logic? "I think that guy has a gun, he's had a gun before and used it, I had to take that gun off him, he's a bad guy, that other cop is searching him and the perp is giving the cop a hard time, hmmm...I'm gonna pull my gun and shoot him, the guy isn't trustworthy, oh the other cop is saying 'hang on, he's cooperating now, I haven't found a gun yet but I'm not done searching,' oh yeah? well too bad, I warned this guy before that I better not catch him with a gun, and if that other cop can't tell me he doesn't have a gun I'm shooting him...BLAM!"

This is the level of 'logic' demonstrated by the Bush-bashers. Comparing the threat of potential WMD, in the aftermath of the greatest single attack ever on U.S. soil, developed by a rogue dictator who had gone to war against the U.S. only a decade earlier, to a 'guy with a gun.'

:doh
 
Seriously, you have UN teams running around Iraq saying "don't invade, give us more time, they are cooperating, and we have yet to find any evidence of WMD's" and you are telling me that in your mind that's actually justification for the invasion? "
Hans Blix up until the invasion was actually reporting that they are somewhat cooperating and somewhat NOT cooperating. He says even now he has no idea why Iraq refused to fully cooperate right up until then but he guesses it was pride. The main point though is that the weapons inspectors were not running around claiming full cooperation. They were running around saying, "Well they let us do this, which is more than that, more than before, but they're still being non-cooperative when it comes to this and that."

In other words, Iraq was told to cooperate or else and Saddam for reasons only really known to him choose OR ELSE. I refuse to feel guilt over that.



You are relying on the inspectors to prove a negative in order to NOT invade. You realize the flaw in that logic?

Absolutely not. I'm relying on the inspectors to report that Iraq is FULLY COOPERATING and absolutely no longer being evasive, non-cooperative, etc.
This was unfortunately something they COULD NOT report. Hans Blix does not deny TODAY that Iraq was NOT fully cooperating. He admits freely that in many ways Iraq was still thwarting the investigation. Think I give a crap if Hans Blix thinks it was pride that caused the non-cooperation? Nope. All I know is that if the weapons inspectors reported they now had full compliance and cooperation THEN It would have been absolutely wrong to invade. But with them reporting meaningful advancements in levels of cooperation but still not full cooperation I say Saddam brought the crap down on his own head.
"I think that guy has a gun, he's had a gun before and used it, I had to take that gun off him, he's a bad guy, that other cop is searching him and the perp is giving the cop a hard time, hmmm...I'm gonna pull my gun and shoot him, the guy isn't trustworthy, oh the other cop is saying 'hang on, he's cooperating now, I haven't found a gun yet but I'm not done searching,' oh yeah? well too bad, I warned this guy before that I better not catch him with a gun, and if that other cop can't tell me he doesn't have a gun I'm shooting him...BLAM!"

Um yeah. As a comparison it would be more like, "OK wait he's not letting me check this pocket. He cooperated kind of in letting me check the back pockets but he won't let me check the front. I don't think he has a gun but he's stopping me from checking everywhere so I can' t say for sure he's got nothing. Then BLAM.
 
Plenty of experts from our country and others advised Bush and Cheney that they had evidence supporting their doubts that Iraq had WMDs. Joe Wilson, and another man, showed that Iraq didn't try to buy any yellow cake uranium. Gen. Richard A. Clark was a terror expert for three presidents. He saw there was no talking Bush out of it. He has a few books about Bush.

BushCo ignored all advice against taking us into a War of Choice!

You seem like an intelligent woman. Do you think all these people coming out of the woodwork are in a vast conspiracy? These are honorable people. Look for the proof yourself. It's out there.

Good luck!
I think it's easy for folks to sit around Monday morning quarterbacking.

As far as I'm concerned it breaks down like this:

Saddam spends a decade not cooperating.

Saddam is told to cooperate or else.

Saddam offers up various levels of cooperation while still giving the weapons inspectors a hard time.

Saddam is again told in no uncertain terms COOPERATE FULLY or else.

Hans Blix begs for more time. He asserts Iraq is cooperating more than ever immediately before the invasion however he is also forced to acknowledge that in some ways Iraq is still not fully cooperating.

We invade.

Today Hans Blix will tell you pride kept Saddam from fully cooperating.

So what?

Were we supposed to gamble on pride as an excuse?

If you aren't hiding something THEN DON'T HIDE.

I know in hindsight everyone embraces the idea that it was well known Iraq had nothing but in reality I think half the world was shocked nothing much was found.
 
I think it's easy for folks to sit around Monday morning quarterbacking.

As far as I'm concerned it breaks down like this:

Saddam spends a decade not cooperating.

Saddam is told to cooperate or else.

Saddam offers up various levels of cooperation while still giving the weapons inspectors a hard time.

Saddam is again told in no uncertain terms COOPERATE FULLY or else.

Hans Blix begs for more time. He asserts Iraq is cooperating more than ever immediately before the invasion however he is also forced to acknowledge that in some ways Iraq is still not fully cooperating.

We invade.

Today Hans Blix will tell you pride kept Saddam from fully cooperating.

So what?

Were we supposed to gamble on pride as an excuse?

If you aren't hiding something THEN DON'T HIDE.

I know in hindsight everyone embraces the idea that it was well known Iraq had nothing but in reality I think half the world was shocked nothing much was found.

Never mind. My mistake. :doh
 
This is the level of 'logic' demonstrated by the Bush-bashers. Comparing the threat of potential WMD, in the aftermath of the greatest single attack ever on U.S. soil, developed by a rogue dictator who had gone to war against the U.S. only a decade earlier, to a 'guy with a gun.'

:doh

The logic model works.

So where is your rebuttal to my two posts that are directed at you?
 
Hans Blix up until the invasion was actually reporting that they are somewhat cooperating and somewhat NOT cooperating. He says even now he has no idea why Iraq refused to fully cooperate right up until then but he guesses it was pride. The main point though is that the weapons inspectors were not running around claiming full cooperation. They were running around saying, "Well they let us do this, which is more than that, more than before, but they're still being non-cooperative when it comes to this and that."
But you have failed to make any valid case for going to war that resulted in the utter destruction of a nation and thousands upon thousands of dead and wounded. For nothing. For a hunch.

In other words, Iraq was told to cooperate or else and Saddam for reasons only really known to him choose OR ELSE. I refuse to feel guilt over that.
Well that's good for you, you go ahead and refuse to see the horrible mistake we made for what it was. I'll not avoid the chewy chunks and call it like it is.


Absolutely not.
No, you absolutely are.

I'm relying on the inspectors to report that Iraq is FULLY COOPERATING and absolutely no longer being evasive, non-cooperative, etc.
We aren't talking about sanctions at this point, we are talking about killing and wounding thousands of Iraqis, raining destruction upon them, all because Saddam is not "fully cooperating" only "somewhat cooperating." Never mind that our teams on the ground from the U.N. were saying "do not invade, they are cooperating, we are making headway." Yeah that doesn't count for anything, what we are worried about is the difference between "fully" and "not fully." Results are irrelevant.

This was unfortunately something they COULD NOT report.
They absolutely reported that Iraq was cooperating, more than they had been, and there was no evidence of WMD's. Our own people who were assigned emphatically stated that Iraq was no military threat to the region or the world, period. They said "we need more time, they are cooperating, don't invade." We just couldn't wait, because all the signs pointed to a "mushroom cloud" right? Only thing is, NONE of the signs pointed that way.

Hans Blix does not deny TODAY that Iraq was NOT fully cooperating. He admits freely that in many ways Iraq was still thwarting the investigation.
But progress was being made, cooperation was there and it was coming at increasing levels. Here is the problem, nowhere in this whole scheme could anyone prove Iraq had WMD's. At. All. I think that before you wage war, you should know that an imminent threat is present. We had nothing to substantiate that.

Think I give a crap if Hans Blix thinks it was pride that caused the non-cooperation? Nope. All I know is that if the weapons inspectors reported they now had full compliance and cooperation THEN It would have been absolutely wrong to invade. But with them reporting meaningful advancements in levels of cooperation but still not full cooperation I say Saddam brought the crap down on his own head.
Yeah because Saddam being stubborn, and a complete lack of evidence that there were any WMD's at all, is worth killing and injuring tens of thousands of people, destroying the infrastructure of a country, sending four thousand of our men and women to their deaths, and spending hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars. Because Saddam was being stubborn.

Um yeah. As a comparison it would be more like, "OK wait he's not letting me check this pocket. He cooperated kind of in letting me check the back pockets but he won't let me check the front. I don't think he has a gun but he's stopping me from checking everywhere so I can' t say for sure he's got nothing. Then BLAM.
That still doesn't work because you have no identified threat. At all. None. Just a hunch. And now you have a dead guy, and the knowledge that you ****ed up and got it wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom