Judging the Case For War

[A_Wanderer]

Juding the Case For War

It is in the Chicago Tribune so it's hardly like an article in the Washington Times

Did President Bush intentionally mislead this nation and its allies into war? Or is it his critics who have misled Americans, recasting history to discredit him and his policies? If your responses are reflexive and self-assured, read on.

On Nov. 20, the Tribune began an inquest: We set out to assess the Bush administration's arguments for war in Iraq. We have weighed each of those nine arguments against the findings of subsequent official investigations by the 9/11 Commission, the Senate Intelligence Committee and others. We predicted that this exercise would distress the smug and self-assured--those who have unquestioningly supported, or opposed, this war.

The matrix below summarizes findings from the resulting nine editorials. We have tried to bring order to a national debate that has flared for almost three years. Our intent was to help Tribune readers judge the case for war--based not on who shouts loudest, but on what actually was said and what happened.

The administration didn't advance its arguments with equal emphasis. Neither, though, did its case rely solely on Iraq's alleged illicit weapons. The other most prominent assertion in administration speeches and presentations was as accurate as the weapons argument was flawed: that Saddam Hussein had rejected 12 years of United Nations demands that he account for his stores of deadly weapons--and also stop exterminating innocents. Evaluating all nine arguments lets each of us decide which ones we now find persuasive or empty, and whether President Bush tried to mislead us.

link

 

[U2DMfan]

Six of those verdicts, I have no quarrel with whatsoever.
However, there are three that point out what I've always said.

THE VERDICT

There was no need for the administration to rely on risky intelligence to chronicle many of Iraq's other sins. In putting so much emphasis on illicit weaponry, the White House advanced its most provocative, least verifiable case for war when others would have sufficed.

I have said this repeatedly. They used this argument because they had the political capital from 9/11 to do so.
It is unforgivable, especially with no contrition, at all.
On the backs of the 9/11 victims, they made Iraq happen, because it was easiest and most attainable.

Some people are fine with this, I am not.

Calling Bush and the Admin, liars, nazis all of the bullshit down the line, takes the eye off THIS ball.

THE VERDICT
The drumbeat of White House warnings before the war made Iraq's terror activities sound more ambitious than subsequent evidence has proven. Based on what we know today, the argument that Hussein was able to foment global terror against this country and its interests was exaggerated.

See the first quote. Trumping up the fear.
Weapons alone? No. Sanctions alone? No.
Need a "terra'ist" threat.

This was fuel to the fire, it was not needed, it was only a public selling point.

THE VERDICT
No compelling evidence ties Iraq to Sept. 11, 2001, as the White House implied. Nor is there proof linking Al Qaeda in a significant way to the final years of Hussein's regime. By stripping its rhetoric of the ambiguity present in the intel data, the White House exaggerated this argument for war.

Even this piece points out that the White House tried to imply the connection, yet you'll have apologists try to say different. Nobody trying to be objective would think otherwise.

Why did they exaggerate it? To sell the fear.



Bottom line, they couldn't sell the legitimate war to the public, all by itself. They had to assert a fear of terrorist attack and a sense of some sort of justice or vengeance for 9/11. America, as a whole wanted to battle terrorism, not nasty dictators. Right or wrong, the Bush admin wanted to make Iraq happen, so they pulled out the easiest, most attainable card they could find.

When the WMD fell through, the onus went to this charge.
It exposed a glaring hole. They trumped up the terrorism.

Forget WMD's, forget sanctions, everyone agreed on those from Chirac to Clinton to Bush, they took the case to the American people laced with a heavy dose of fear.

There are people who have no problem with this.
For all those victims, that really sought a measure of justice or even vengeance in a lot of cases. Iraq was made to make sense.
It already made sense in the legitimate case.
So why was the other needed? Plain as day, people.

I consider it an affront and a disrespect to the victims of 9/11 that our Govt., with a different agenda altogether used the War on Terrorism as a mechanism to pull the Iraq War off. Everyone from Richard Clarke, to Bob Woodward in his book (endorsed by the WH itself) said that the Bush admin wanted Hussein from day one. Not 9/12 but day one of the Bush admin. There was even a reference, one I can't credit at this exact moment, that Bush made remarks about getting Hussein on the 2000 campaign trail.

They were going to make it happen one way or the other.
And they did. Are you ok with this? How and why?
I am willing to listen to anything but blathering responses about resolutions that I already addressed.

Even this piece, from the same paper which endorsed the Iraq action, and now stand behind that decision even after inverstigation, states only what I have claimed.

I address this to anybody:
Is it important to you that they used fear of terrorists attacks, which weren't substantiated in order to sell this to the people?

Or is it of no consequence, and getting Hussein was right no matter how it was sold?

 

[Scarletwine]

No. The whole thing pisses me off. How did I know it was bullshit but not our elected officials? I saw Scott Ritter on TV the other day and he had a great timeline for Iraq from Bush 1, Clinton first against messing with Iraq then changing his mind to Bush 2.

This is a great read.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12243.htm

The Dilemma Of The Last Sovereign

By Zbigniew Brezezinski

Spengler’s notions of manipulated masses clamoring for
a war willed by their leaders, Toynbee’s of suicidal statecraft
that undermines its own imperial power, and
Huntington’s of culturally antagonistic democratization
have particular relevance to President Bush’s foreign policy.
For 250 years America’s message to the world has
been: “Give me your tired, your poor / Your huddled
masses yearning to breathe free.” Lately, it has been: “If
you are not with us, you are against us.” Today, after
9/11, the politically aroused world expects better from
America: that it reach out with a serious commitment to
uplift the human condition. Only with America’s sovereignty
dedicated in an historically relevant fashion to a
cause larger than its own security will the American
interest again coincide with the global interest.

I really believe this is the only way forward.