No, what this makes them guilty of is the faulty mindset that everyone had prior to 9-11. Events of that day and statements afterward indicated that, in fact, the sanctions were not working, and were actually contributing to another problem. Sanctions had strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq at the cost of our own security--an impact that had not been considered until after 9-11.

Your first conclusion is absolutely sound - and, to my mind, totally accurate. Had they ever an honest moment, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Perle would tell you that you are absolutely correct - then they would probably kill you.

I'm not as certain about your second conclusion. There is little in UN history to indicate that, having established that Iraq was weapons-free they would simply have turned their backs on Hussein. That has not been the case in most countries where the UNSC has felt the need for intervention. Nevertheless, the fact that he was already using the euro rather than the dollar was the primary reason for effecting regime change in Iraq rather than establishing the first foothold of the American hegemon elsewhere in the Middle East.


Why is it that most Europeans can see through US policies so easily while most Americans remain deaf, blind, and mentally retarded by comparison? Must be that "liberal media" we keep hearing about. Anyway, you are very much on target here. I would add that most European heads of state are fully aware of the global aspirations of the PNAC and have either joined the coalition of the terrified or are taking their chances by standing with the rest of the free world against New American Century autocracy.


As things stand, I would agree. Of course, this will get the dittoheads crying "He prefers the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to truth, justice, and apple pie!!" But let's face it: while I'm the last person who would like to see Hussein in charge of Iraq and while the Iraqis may eventually be better off under an American puppet than under Hussein, "the world" is definitely not safer by any realistic barometer. Iranians, Kurds, and Kuwaitis may be marginally safer at the moment, but the Iraqi adventure has clearly put the US and her hapless "allies" under graver threat than ever.

Hobbes,



Wow. What problem were they contributing to? There is not, nor has there ever been a connection between the problems in Iraq and 9/11. In fact, Osama Bin Laden was not a fan of Saddam Hussein. In his statement regarding the US invasion of Iraqhe said things like:



But the statement did not express support for Saddam. It said Muslims should support the Iraqi people rather than the country's government. Referring to Saddam as an infidel, he said:



So I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to.

Umm...how? The only evidence I've ever read on this is tenuously circumstantial. As with any circumstantial evidence, it can be interpreted in many ways. Given the US intelligence community's poor performance with predicting Saddam's WMD program, I'd have to say I consider those interpretations highly suspect. Unless you can show me direct, unambiguous evidence, then I humbly suggest you're being entirely too credulous. If association with 9/11 is how you judge the imminence of threat, then I'd suggest you look to other nations for that dubious title, in particular Saudi Arabia where most of the 9/11 terrorists originated for which there does seem to be direct, unambiguous evidence. All I ask is you follow the evidence and not the ideology.


Weapons inspectors were never going to "solve' Saddam's regime. They were there to prevent WMD and to verify 1441 compliance. Again, I can sympathize with your position. You wanted Saddam out of there and believed that it was justified no matter what. In that light, WMD and association with 9/11 must be immaterial to your position. If that is so, I suppose I don't understand why you use those points as part of your justification for invasion. Whether or not they were true, you would have advocated invasion. As such, I would suggest you remove them from your list of justifications. How do your sums work then?

As for the "terrorists have sprung up in Iraq" theory, in another thread this was discussed at great length. From what I've read, most the insurgency is composed of resistance fighters and/or opportunists and not terrorists. But, even if they were mostly terrorists, isn't it conceivable that new terrorists have been created? Or are you promulgating a "conservation of terrorists" theory, that there are a fixed number of terrorists in the world so one cropping up Iraq means one fewer elsewhere?


I have absolutely no idea what you mean here. What's the difference between justification and "actual reason"? If you believe there is a difference , then please re-read all my posts and mentally replace the term "justification" with "actual reason".


Eh? This is a red herring as well as an appeal to fear fallacy. What we're debating is that the weapons inspectors were right. They were being successful. The implications of invading Iraq when there were no WMD will have repercussions in the coming years. One thing is for sure. Any country which is contemplating WMD will likely accelerate their program since they know they'll get invaded just because they are "thinking about it". WMD is the only real mechanism to prevent such an attack. I can think of two countries right now.


The first thing to consider is that 1441 would have remained in force regardless. Weapons inspectors would have still canvassed Iraq for WMD program with or without sanctions. They would not have been removed. Weapons inspections are an ongoing, unending process. The second thing to consider is that even if sanctions were lifted, the US would have still "contained" Iraq with overflights and so on.

Again, you are arguing that Saddam is bad and should be taken out whether or not he had WMD. Just admit that and then we can have a debate . Weapons inspectors could not "solve" Saddam's despotism. They could "solve" the WMD issue.


First, I think you're being a bit disingenuous about the usage of "threat". Only in abstract terms at some point in the hypothetical future would an unfettered Saddam have ever become a "threat". Well, Saddam would not have been unfettered. The report shows that the 12 years of containment and inspections had actually produced the most desire result: no WMD, no WMD program. There is no reason to believe that continued containment and weapons inspections would not have maintained this fact. To suggest otherwise is to blatantly ignore the evidence.

Second, I am confused over your differentiation between "justification" and "real reason". What does this mean? To justify a position is to use evidence and logical argument to make a case. I feel like we've entered a Monty Python sketch.

I can't believe you just said that Hobbes. Even Bush has backed away from any mention of the word "imminent" to describe the mythical threat Saddam posed. The only reason the urban legend of Saddam's "association" with 9/11 gets propogated is that Bush couldn't sell the war without it and WMD. If either one fell, so would his justification. All of his political capital rested on 9/11. Associated = Imminent? Evil Knievel would look at the chasm in that leap in logic and say "no thanks".

Doc
"Poppin a wheelie" for accountability

I truly cannot comprehend some of the arguments here. It looks like some are picking up loose pieces of string to wrap themselves up in as a blanket, and telling us how much warmer they are.

If the intent of invading Iraq was only regime change, why 1441 and all the other UN resolutions? Why the no fly zone? Why the sanctions? Why the inspectors?

In fact, why did this report - along with reports by Scott Ritter, David Kay, and Hans Blix - even matter? Did Bush just let us fight among ourselves and take another umpteen millions out of our economy for fun? Why not just invade Iraq on September 12th, 2001?

But now, the greatest argument of all has arisen out of this report: It's not Bush's fault because all the democrats - including Kerry - supported Bush.

It's a sad day when the President of The United States holds people at fault for following his leadership.

Can you provide a source to this?

From my understanding Bush held no one accountable for his leadership. In fact in his speech as President, the only thing I can find that may blame anyone about anything is in this: Meaning that he view someone else beliefs on improving intelligence gathering.

It is sad to think our leaders do not make choices. Bush made a choice based on the intelligence he was given. Kerry made a choice based upon the intelligence Bush was given. As leaders these men made choices that effected the lives of Americans. That is why we vote them in. To make the choice we could not or would not make.

It is sad to think that both men were not apart of the need to attack Iraq. Both were leaders were instruments in presenting the War on Terrorism moving into Iraq before congress. Kerry, a very liberal Democrat, was influential in persuading Democratic Senators, like John Edwards, to vote for the war.

It is sad to suggest that Kerry has no influence in the Senate over Democrats. Kerry has been in the Senate for 20 years and holds a seats in a very high committees.

I think the sadness stems from people who would think that our leaders do not take responsiblity for their actions. Clinton took responsiblity, Kerry takes responsiblity, and Bush took responsiblity.

Well, as far as I can remember - and I could be wrong - John Kerry has never been elected as the President of The United States. However, when Bush is being held accountable for his decisions, he reverts to the "Kerry and Edwards authorized the use of force" excuse. In other words, they trusted his leadership and it's their fault for doing so. My point is, Bush was the boss - not them. But he's making it their fault for following him.

Very well.

Here is the link to Bush's speech as president of the United States addressing the Iraq Report. Please point to somewhere, anywhere, as President of the United States, Bush reverts to the "Kerry and Edwards authorized the use of force" excuse.

I can not find this anywhere. I have yet to find a statement form the President of the United States where he holds people at fault for following his leadership.

So I guess my question to you is, where are you getting that the President is blaming others?

Allright this is Bush's conclusion he is trying to impress upon the nation. Let's break it down.

"Based on all the information we have today, I believe we were right to take action, and America is safer today with Saddam Hussein in prison"

Bush of course is saying we were "right" to take action, an after the fact approach. The question has, and always will be whether the justification was there, which of course we now know, it wasn't. Bush may have made a choice as yehoshua credits him, but he made the wrong one, and obviously he hasn't fessed up.

"He retained the knowledge, the materials, the means, and the intent to produce weapons of mass destruction."

Not True.

"And he could have passed that knowledge on to our terrorist enemies."

"So be afraid and vote for me"

"Saddam Hussein was a unique threat, a sworn enemy of our country, a state sponsor of terror,"

Saddam was certainly unique, but it is proven that he was not an immediate threat, thus requiring immediate invasion as Bush provided us with. I am uninspired. Saddam was a sworn enemy of our country? Big Suprise! We were allies only a few years back before Gulf War uno, but then after we refused to give Iraq permission to invade Kuwait he did it anyway, biting the hand that fed him. We proceeded to kick some Iraqi tail. Since then he has been our sworn enemy, sure, but it doesn't make him any more EVIL.

As for being a state sponsor of terror, well so are we. I will cite historical examples if necessary but for now just one. The Contras in Nicaragua were a terrorist-like organization... oh and Osama BL was on the CIA payroll not too long ago defending Afghanistan from those nasty soviets. We are a state sponsor of terror. So is Iraq, so can't we all just get along? (Or atleast stop using flawed argumentation).

"operating in the world's most volatile region"

A region more stable before the invasion. Way to go Mr Moron.

"In a world after September the 11th, he was a threat we had to confront. And America and the world are safer for our actions"

Of course no Bush speech is complete without a 9.11 reference. Bush and friends obviously believe that if you repeat a lie enough it becomes the truth. If I could talk to Bush directly I would ask him "You say Iraq was a threat we 'had' to confront, given that our justification has been debunked, why?" and in this perfect world Bush would just say "I don't know" and resign.

You call this leadership? At least he's consistent...ly wrong.

Wait a second. You are adding an opinion. How could this be an accurate breakdown with an added opinion? The wrong choice?

The decision is divided among right and wrong decision to go to Iraq. Stop the spin.



Based on what? The Report? Can you point out where in the report it claims that Saddam did not retain the knowledge, materials, means and intent to produce WMDs?


If you vote with the rest of America. The above quote shows Bush having a slight edge over Kerry when it comes to better plans for the war.



How is it proven that Saddam is not an immediate threat? Where in the report is this information held?



Stable how? Where is this report? The Middle East hasn't been stable since Israel became a state. More stable? How can anything be less unstable then unstable? It was unstable before the war, it is unstable after the war.



The world didn't change after 9/11? Everything is still the same? Sometimes the truth hurts.


I called him a leader. I called Kerry a leader. Leadership is something they do. Right or wrong.

I'm going to let, Hero, answer your questions if he chooses, but what you have here is a type of logical fallacy known as a burden of proof fallacy. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that he was an imminent threat and not on Hero.


Now, the burden of proof is on both of you. But, I side with Hero here. If the growing insurgency and diminishing US support in Iraq is not a sign of increasing destabilization, then I'd like to know how you would measure it. Can you provide evidence suggesting that Iraq was equally unstable prior to invasion?


No, the world didn't change. The world has remained as equally brutal and compassionate as it was prior to 9/11. What has changed is the US. Much of the rest of the world has been dealing with terrorist attacks on their soil for quite a while.


Here, we agree. Leadership is not always popular nor is it always correct. But, leaders are accountable for their actions. Leaders should not make excuses for their mistakes. Leaders should not hold consistency as their highest ideal. Leaders, like any reasonable person, should have standards that can be modified due to contravening data.

Don't think that over states the case a bit?

Anyway I hope we are about to find out. I'll post my entire two cents on the topic later (I've been too busy to collect my information lately)...

however I do have a couple of questions about the PNAC theory.

So moif, Wertz and any other adherents to this school of thought, why exactly would Tony Blair knowingly sign onto this plot when it doesn't benefit him of his country in the same way the supposed use of the dollar when trading in oil (hardly a done deal) that is forthcoming form the new Iraqi government?

For that matter (and here I plead ignorance) how exactly will the US make so much money from having Iraq trade in dollars anyway?

turnea



I can't say what passes through the mind of Tony Blair. I am not privy to his motivations.

I suspect however that he has followed the Americans, for the same reason that Denmark did... because he'd rather be an ally to America than to Germany and France.




It won't.

The argument is that the USA moved to protect the dollar against the threat of the Euro.