An open letter to George W. Bush

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by phillyfan26

Anyone who talks themselves into the War in Iraq making us safer can talk themselves into anything.

If you don't understand how important the Persian Gulf has been to the United States and the world for 60 years now, then you will never understand any US military intervention in the region. If you don't understand Saddam's history in the region prior to 2003 and how he threatened US and global security in the region, then your not going to understand why Saddam needed to be removed in 2003. If you don't understand many of the reasons the United States sent half a million troops to the region in 1990-1991, then your definitely not going to understand why Saddam had to be removed in 2003. If you don't know or understand what took place during the UN inspection process of the 1990s as well as limited US military action against Saddam during that time, then your not going to understand why it was necessary to remove Saddam in 2003.

When did Iraq get more dangerous between January 20, 2001 and March 20, 2003 (or whenever the fuck we decided to give an ultimatum)?

Essentially every single day that went by during that time, the sanctions and weapons embargo designed to help contain Saddam continued to erode, making it easier for Saddam to make money on the black market and potentially aquire new weapons and materials for his military. Thousands of stocks of WMD continued to remain unaccounted for according to UN weapons inspectors, who Saddam did not let into the country again until November 2002.

Why didn't Bush wait for the weapons inspectors to finish in Iraq?

The issue is not the weapons inspectors, but Saddam's LACK of full cooperation with the weapons inspectors which, based on evidence found after his removal, continued after he let the inspectors back in, in November 2002.

Why didn't Bush work with the UN?

Bush worked with the UN every step of the way. It was Bush's efforts that got UN inspectors back on the ground for the first time since November 1998. It was Bush who got a new UN resolution passed authorizing military action if Saddam did not comply. It was Bush that succeeded in getting UN approval for the operation every year after the invasion.

Why did Bush lie about weapons of mass destruction?

The only group that ever lied about WMD and WMD programs was Saddam's regime.

Why did Bush suddenly change his mind halfway through and make it no longer about weapons of mass destruction when there were none?

Bush never changed his reasons for invading, but the mission in Iraq did change, from one of regime removal to one of nation building to replace Saddam's regime.

Why did Bush take three years to figure out that the strategy they put into place was entirely destructive?

Counter insurgency and nation building are very difficult, time consuming operations. Progress was made during that time, and the Surge strategy built on the progress that had been made earlier. The military had resisted previously the stationing of troops over a wide area in small detachments, because individually they would be more vulnerable to being attacked and overrun. But doing this made it easier to intercept insurgents, work with and gain the confidence of the local population. Ultimately, it led to a huge reduction in US and Iraqi civilian casualties and the killing or capturing of large numbers of insurgents and Al Quada members.

Why don't Republicans give a straight answer to these questions?

They have time and again, but liberals refuse to listen to or acknowledge such answers.

Until a straight answer without spin is given, defenders of the War in Iraq are Republican lackeys, spreading propaganda and misinformation.

Talk about spin.

Here's some straight talk from Bill Clinton:

The hard fact is, that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of his region, THE SECURITY OF THE WORLD. The best way to end that threat, once and for all, is with a new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.

[jesseu2]

Originally Posted by dazzlingamy

At the swearing in of the new President, the current President is jeered and booed. I don't think it gets much more classless than that.

And did not the republicans do the same thing when McCain conceded? People boo, who gives a toss, they were disappointed, demos hate the ADMINS guts.

Then after McCain made a speech, some of the people in the crowd woke up and went...."oh maybe this guy isn't so bad after all"........ i remember seeing women cry in McCain's rally area after McCain lost, so pathetic..

I live in Arizona an have liked everything here except that its a damn red state.

[mobvok]

And having said that, Bill Clinton still refused to start a ground invasion to remove Saddam.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Strongbow

You think that today with improved technology, access to information, communications, it takes less time for the US, history to assess how well a President has done or whether or not they approve of something.

So, had such advantages existed decades earlier, Truman might have had a higher approval rating either as President or the new assessment about his time as President and the Korean war would not have taken as long. Correct?

They would not have taken as long... that's it, nothing more nothing less.

Originally Posted by Strongbow

Don't listen to Rush or Hannity, listen to what President Bill Clinton said before he left office:

Once again you miss my point.

Originally Posted by Strongbow

In the liberal bubble of FYM that is certainly true. Among the general public nearly 40% think removing Saddam was the right and necessary thing to do. Among members of the US military, the vast majority think it was the right and necessary thing to do. The publics view of the war is likely to change over time just as it did with respect to the Korean war.

But you're talking AROUND the subject, like always... I'm not talking to you from a bubble, I'm telling you what I see out in the real world, the debates playing out on TV, the conversations that are occuring on the streets, for this is what will be writing history. And the debate is not over should Saddam have removed, you are living in delusion if you think otherwise... The debate is everything else I mentioned.

The public's view of the war will more than likely be one of "the misguided and misexecuted war". But it all depends on what happens in the next year or so...

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by mobvok

And having said that, Bill Clinton still refused to start a ground invasion to remove Saddam.

He didn't refuse a ground invasion, but felt there was still time for alternatives to work. Those alternatives failed. In 2003, Bill Clinton publically supported the ground invasion to remove Saddam.

[namkcuR]

Sting/Strongbow...against my better judgement I am going to briefly attempt to use some logic with you; Even - EVEN - if Saddam was as big of a direct threat to the US as you continually say he was - removing him from power was STILL not that reason given to the public when Bush first ordered the invasion. The reason given to the public was merely to get rid of any WMDs that Saddam may or may not have had. Only after none were found did the mission become to take him out of power altogether. And the reasoning given to the public for that was the T-O-T-A-L lie that Saddam had been involved in 9/11. And why was that lie told? Because Saddam hadn't yet done anything to us. Even if Saddam was as big of a threat to the US as you continually say he was, he hadn't yet done anything to us to warrant an invasion. The 9/11 lie was told so that the public debate would be whether or not Saddam was involved in 9/11, and NOT what the ethical dilemmas and implications of the Bushist 'preemptive war' doctrine/philosophy were.

Going to war with a country that you think might hurt you but that hasn't yet done anything to you is unacceptable, and lying to the country about it to divert their attention from that ethical debate while simultaneously misleading them into supporting said war is unacceptable.

[Bluer White]

Originally Posted by Strongbow

In 2003, Bill Clinton publically supported the ground invasion to remove Saddam.

Also....Vice President Biden, Secretary Clinton, Senate Majority Leader Reid. Among others.

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

[namkcuR]

Originally Posted by Bluer White

Also....Vice President Biden, Secretary Clinton, Senate Majority Leader Reid. Among others.

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

Who all voted for it based on faulty intelligence. Two of three you mentioned have since said they were wrong. How many times must we go over this?

[mobvok]

If you want to use Clinton's support for Bush's invasion as a bludgeon, then use a contemporary quote ~ 2003. In the 1990s, Clinton decided that despite all the awful things Saddam had on his ledger, a ground invasion still wouldn't be productive. Even though regime change was (I think) the official policy of the US government re: Saddam, that is not an automatic endorsement of several hundred thousand troops going to war.

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar

But you're talking AROUND the subject, like always... I'm not talking to you from a bubble, I'm telling you what I see out in the real world, the debates playing out on TV, the conversations that are occuring on the streets, for this is what will be writing history. And the debate is not over should Saddam have removed, you are living in delusion if you think otherwise... The debate is everything else I mentioned.

The public's view of the war will more than likely be one of "the misguided and misexecuted war". But it all depends on what happens in the next year or so...

The issue, especially for Americans will always rest on whether it was a plus or minus for US and global security just like every previous war in US history. Currently its 60% against, 40% for removing Saddam from power based on the latest gallup polls. Not too different from the polling during the Korean War. Opposition to the Iraq war has clearly topped out, and as this question is asked in the future, you will over time see the numbers reverse themselves. Just as they did for the Korean War.

Just ask yourself this, do people discuss US intervention in World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the 1991 Gulf War mainly from the perspective of whether it was legal, what was the "true" motive, how many allies did we have, was it related to other conflicts; or is the most important thing they discuss is the impact it had on US and global security at the time and why or why not it was necessary for the US to intervene to positively impact US and global security.

In the case of Iraq, the main security issue was whether or not to remove Saddam from power in 2003. The majority of the military to this day still supports that removal of Saddam from power. The publics approval will begin to move closer to the military's in the coming years. The only reason the public approval dropped for the war was its length with the associated costs. Provided the United States does not prematurely withdraw from Iraq it will succeed in its mission there which will go a long way to impacting public approval on the issue in the future.

Its not the legal issues or the number of allies that people will be talking about and making their judgement on, its what the military intervention meant for US and global security. Thats how its been done with previous US wars, and the current Iraq war will be no different. The only thing that is going to seem misquided in the future is the idea of leaving Saddam in power.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Strongbow

Just ask yourself this, do people discuss US intervention in World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the 1991 Gulf War mainly from the perspective of whether it was legal, what was the "true" motive, how many allies did we have, was it related to other conflicts; or is the most important thing they discuss is the impact it had on US and global security at the time and why or why not it was necessary for the US to intervene to positively impact US and global security.

I think you should compare preemptive wars to preemptive wars...

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by namkcuR

Sting/Strongbow...against my better judgement I am going to briefly attempt to use some logic with you; Even - EVEN - if Saddam was as big of a direct threat to the US as you continually say he was - removing him from power was STILL not that reason given to the public when Bush first ordered the invasion. The reason given to the public was merely to get rid of any WMDs that Saddam may or may not have had. Only after none were found did the mission become to take him out of power altogether.

Thats false, because the search for Saddams WMD and WMD programs could not be successfully done until Saddam and his regime were removed as shown by Saddam's constant deception and hiding of materials during the 1990s. While actual WMD's were not found, multiple programs related to the production of WMD were found that violated the 1991 UN Ceacefire agreement. It also remains a fact that thousands of stocks of Iraqi WMD remain unaccounted for. Failure to find them does not change the fact that it was Saddam's responsibility to verifiably dismantle such weapons in front of inspectors. The fact that their missing also does not mean they don't exist. The weapons are either intact, or were dismantled.

And the reasoning given to the public for that was the T-O-T-A-L lie that Saddam had been involved in 9/11.

There was intelligence that Saddam might have had contacts with Al Quada. But the President NEVER told the public that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

Even if Saddam was as big of a threat to the US as you continually say he was, he hadn't yet done anything to us to warrant an invasion.

Saddams previous actions, including the invasion and annexation of Kuwait, plus during the 1990s his refusal to cooperate on the verifiable disarmament of his WMD and WMD programs, his violation of 17 different UN Security Council resolutions, and the crumbling of the sanctions and inspections regime designed to help contain, and his failure to abide by the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement were more than enough justification for the US and its allies to invade and remove the regime.

Going to war with a country that you think might hurt you but that hasn't yet done anything to you is unacceptable,

Saddam's Iraq had already seriously hurt multiple countries in the region and threatened global security. Because of this, he was required to to abide by a series of strict rules under the Gulf War Ceacefire agreement and to fully cooperate in the dismantlement of all WMD and WMD related programs or else face renewed military action to accomplish those goals. Given what Saddam did, the invasion in 2003 was actually overdue.

and lying to the country about it to divert their attention from that ethical debate while simultaneously misleading them into supporting said war is unacceptable.

No one lied and the ethical debate you speak of does not exist in this situation.

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar

I think you should compare preemptive wars to preemptive wars...

After Saddam's invasion and annexation of Kuwait and the Gulf War that removed his forces from Kuwait, the United States and its allies had the authorization from the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement and multiple UN resolutions to resume military action against Iraq in order to bring about compliance.

You can call that preemptive, preventive or what every you like, but it was done to insure US and global security after the crises of 1990-1991. The one thing that all these major wars have in common that the United States as been in, is US and global security, and the positive or negative effect that intervention has had on that is how each one will be judged.

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by mobvok

If you want to use Clinton's support for Bush's invasion as a bludgeon, then use a contemporary quote ~ 2003. In the 1990s, Clinton decided that despite all the awful things Saddam had on his ledger, a ground invasion still wouldn't be productive. Even though regime change was (I think) the official policy of the US government re: Saddam, that is not an automatic endorsement of several hundred thousand troops going to war.

The hard fact is, that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of his region, THE SECURITY OF THE WORLD. The best way to end that threat, once and for all, is with a new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.


The above statement by Bill Clinton was made in December of 1998 after the failure of years of inspections, sanctions, and other means to solve the problem. The ultimate conclusion at that time was that Saddam needed to be removed. The ONLY way that could happen proved to be a full scale military invasion. Other options were tried and failed.

Given that the only way Saddam could be removed was through a full scale military invasion, the statement is an early endorsement of that option.

[mobvok]

Originally Posted by Strongbow

The hard fact is, that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of his region, THE SECURITY OF THE WORLD. The best way to end that threat, once and for all, is with a new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.


The above statement by Bill Clinton was made in December of 1998 after the failure of years of inspections, sanctions, and other means to solve the problem. The ultimate conclusion at that time was that Saddam needed to be removed. The ONLY way that could happen proved to be a full scale military invasion. Other options were tried and failed.

Given that the only way Saddam could be removed was through a full scale military invasion, the statement is an early endorsement of that option.

If Clinton endorsed invasion it would have happened. He was the President. But it didn't.