News Flash: No Wmd In Iraq

[JimmyCracksCorn]

1.) Political power (on a nation-state level), and
2.) Reshaping the face of the Middle East ( in the end analysis, #2 is the same as #1)

And these are grounds for a pre-emptive war, how?

Please be reasonable. Everyone knows the war was about WMD and al-quaeda connections. Neither of which proved to be true.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ned
Plato, the only question that is really relevant to Bush's conduct is whether he should have relied on what the Director of Central Intelligence told him at the time he told him. The DoCI did not give Bush a wishy-washy statement on WMD. He said it was a "slam dunk."

Assuming CIA was his only source would make that statement relevant, but it wasn't. State had cast serious doubts on both the sources of the intelligence and the intelligence itself. NSC also had questions. The point is that Bush did NOT lie, but he did frame the debate to accomplish his greater goals. Not an unusual thing from a President.

My point is that to look at the real reasons for the war and to evaluate it from that standpoint. Given the reasons that I layed out above, I would submit that the war was not only justified, but extremely important to the US staying the major player in the ME. Obviously, from my point of view, this is a neccesary precursor to there ever being a chance for real peace there. No other country can bring to the table the combination of factors that the US can. For our political and economic power to wan there would be the real crime. Action had to be taken.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn


And these are grounds for a pre-emptive war, how?

Please be reasonable. Everyone knows the war was about WMD and al-quaeda connections. Neither of which proved to be true.

I think I have laid out my case. I believe it to be a reasonable analysis of the true situation. I believe that I have also stated that the WMD issue was the only one with international standing.

The "justification" for war was truly not an international one (which is required for the leftist viewpoint), but is rather a national one. The US acted in its own interest, not the interest of the world. This much is clear.

Once you get beyond the narrow viewpoint that every war must be internationally justified, then you can begin to evaluate weather or not the US was accomplishing its own goals. From a national perspective, this is what is relevant.

[chequita guevara]

PLATO is mostly correct, except for the Bush not lying part. Of course, it's possible Bush may not have known he was lying, since important information had been kept from him.

Regardless, the war was sold to Congress and the American people as a war of self-defense against imminent danger. That's the only reason the Administration received funds to embark on their crusade. It was the fig-leaf they attempted to sell the war on internationally, damaging the credibility of some of our allies, such as Great Britain and bringing down the Spanish Conservative government. BTW, GB has said that no matter what the evidence, they won't follow us into Iran. So another real danger gets a go ahead while Bush goes after his daddy's enemy.

[Ramo]

I don't think that it's that Bush was consciously lying, as much as he's totally intolerant of dissenting ideas, and only listens to his little echo chamber.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ramo
I don't think that it's that Bush was consciously lying, as much as he's totally intolerant of dissenting ideas

To this point of your statement I agree completely with you. In the aftermath of 911 and the with the declining influence in the region, Ibelieve a decision was made. At that point the admin was intolerent of things that would make that decision harder to implement. I think it was a situation of "CIA says this, but State says this" and Bush saying, "Let's go with CIA's stuff."

If the decision had not already been made, for reasons different than the intelligence that we are discussing, then I believe that a more cautious examinationof the evidence would have been made.

[chequita guevara]

Actually, the CIA was saying, "this, but maybe not." People like Rice and her undersectretary took out the "but maybe not" part. I'm no fan of the CIA, but it's not their fault that the Administration cooked the intelligence.

[Ramo]

It's more like "CIA, State, everyone says this, and Wolfy says that, let's go with Wolfy."

[MrFun]

Originally posted by PLATO


Assuming CIA was his only source would make that statement relevant, but it wasn't. State had cast serious doubts on both the sources of the intelligence and the intelligence itself. NSC also had questions. The point is that Bush did NOT lie, but he did frame the debate to accomplish his greater goals. Not an unusual thing from a President.

My point is that to look at the real reasons for the war and to evaluate it from that standpoint. Given the reasons that I layed out above, I would submit that the war was not only justified, but extremely important to the US staying the major player in the ME. Obviously, from my point of view, this is a neccesary precursor to there ever being a chance for real peace there. No other country can bring to the table the combination of factors that the US can. For our political and economic power to wan there would be the real crime. Action had to be taken.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight . . . . . .


Bush would never lie, because unlike the others, he is not a politician.



oh wait a minute . . . . . .

[PLATO]

No doubt that the intelligence was looked at in a way that would favor the admin's case. The point I am trying to make is that is not the real issue on the war. "Was the war in the national interests of the US?" is the question. Having an "international" justification for a pre-emptive war is the most unusual of circumstances. It is almost always for a "national" interest. The problem is that the world does not recognize a "national" interest in going to war. In order to keep tacit adherence to international law, the admin had to make their case. They made it well enough to get 1441 which provided the minimum standard for international legal acceptence. Beyond that, the WMD issue was not relevant to the war decision.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by MrFun



Riiiiiiiiiiiight . . . . . .


Bush would never lie, because unlike the others, he is not a politician.



oh wait a minute . . . . . .

You are totally missing the point here!! (and methinks ya know it.)

[Ned]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


well since the first 4 points are true, explain to me why we did go into iraq.

cuz bush to is a flip flopper. first he says we're going in cuz of WMD, and there is imminenant threat. then he sez we went in cuz there were connections between al qaeda and iraq. then he sez we're going in to liberate the people.

tell me. is the mission accomplished? or was that just a cheap stunt?

Bush never said half the things you just said he said.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by PLATO
Having an "international" justification for a pre-emptive war is the most unusual of circumstances.

This, however, is an obfuscation of reality. It's a brilliant argument, but one at odds with history. The war could not have been sold to America, let alone the world, as you lay it out here (and which was the real reason all along, as I argued back then). The American people and the American Congress signed on to this war, not to re-establish American hegemony in the ME, but to protect the US against an iminent attack. When you ask Bush supporters about Iraq today, they overwhemingly say we needed to stop them from attacking us. There are millions of Neds in this country.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ned


Bush never said half the things you just said he said.

Well maybe not in that same way, since some of those words have too many syllables.

[Ned]

Originally posted by PLATO


Assuming CIA was his only source would make that statement relevant, but it wasn't. State had cast serious doubts on both the sources of the intelligence and the intelligence itself. NSC also had questions. The point is that Bush did NOT lie, but he did frame the debate to accomplish his greater goals. Not an unusual thing from a President.

My point is that to look at the real reasons for the war and to evaluate it from that standpoint. Given the reasons that I layed out above, I would submit that the war was not only justified, but extremely important to the US staying the major player in the ME. Obviously, from my point of view, this is a neccesary precursor to there ever being a chance for real peace there. No other country can bring to the table the combination of factors that the US can. For our political and economic power to wan there would be the real crime. Action had to be taken.

No doubt that the war was justified regardless of whether or not WMD's were found. But the central thesis of the left is that Bush lied because there were no WMD's found and that war was unjustified for the same reason. I would hope you would agree that the left is being completely disingenuous here.

As to whether others in the administration questioned whether or not there were in fact of WMD's in Iraq, the real question is whether or not these doubts were communicated to President Bush in that final meeting with the Director of Central intelligence where the issue and reliability of the intelligence was discussed. From the 9/11 report, we have learned that Bush did have doubts about the reliability of the evidence, but was reassured by the Director of the Central Intelligence that it was a slam dunk that Saddam had WMD's. Did Powell, Rumsfeld, Cheney or anybody else continued to debate that issue after George Tenet said what he said?