Irvine511 said:
wait ... are you kidding?
the administration continuously mentioned Saddam and 9-11 in nearly every single statement they made about the justification for the Iraq war throughout 2002, Condi referenced mushroom clouds, Bush said "i will not leave the American peopel at the mercy of the Iraqi dictator and his weapons" he pointed to Saddam's "terrorist connections" as well as "we fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill ourcitizens, and Iraq is wehre they are making their stand" and in June he said "we went to war because we4 were attacked, and we aere at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm out co untry and hurt our citizens" and "ourtroops are fighting these terrorists in Iraq so you will not have to face them here at home."
while there isn't anything as ultra-explicit as you seem to demand, it is absurdly clear to anyone that the intention is to link Iraq to 9-11 (and when 50% of Fox News viewers believed that Saddam Hussein attacked the US in 2003 then you can be sure the administation's speechwriters were complimented for doing their job very well).
STING, you've listed (over and over again) several reasons for the justification of the invasion, nearly NONE of which were presented by the administration to the American people, and with good reason: the reasons you site would never be justification enough for America to send her sons and daughters to war. what is needed is a clear, present danger to the homeland of the US, and 9-11 provided that opportunity. you can make an argument that the squemishness of the American people is an obstacle that must be overcome because the strategic necessity of removing Husseing was imperative, but that doesn't mean that a public and a volunteer army is going to buy that. but they will buy it when it is couched in terms of a direct threat to the homeland. hence, Condi and her "mushroom clouds" that could only come from Saddam's mythical WMDs.
i do not disagree with your facts -- i simply don't think they add up to a case for war.
neither would most Ameicans. and the administration knew this.
thus, 9-11 gave them the perfect opportunity to meld the deaths of 3,000 innocent people into a justification for war.
too bad the primary reason for war -- WMDs, and please see Cheney's late 2002 "meet the press" interview (i think it was in September) where he claims that Saddam had "reconstituted" his nuclear weapons program -- has blow up in their faces.
now, they're scrambilng for more justifications, none of which are the ones you present.
The administration never stated that Saddam Hussien and his regime were responsible for 9/11 and the murder of 3,000 Americans and people of other nationalities. Thats a fact. Yes, the Bush administration did talk about the threats of WMD and Saddam as well as the danger of Saddam's capabilities being made available to terrorist in the future. But he never stated that Saddam was responsible for what happened on 9/11.
I think what is obvious is that the opposition in the United States to president Bush has done everything they could to try and lable the President as misleading America, regardless of the facts. It is their cherry Picking of the Presidents statements as well as ignoring other facts, that they have neatly packaged their "he lied, are soldiers died" campaign for 2004 which the American people rejected.
ALL of the reasons I have listed as the justification for the invasion of Iraq have been presented by the administration and your assertion that nearly NONE of them were presented is simply false.
For the past 60 years, the seizure and sabotage of most of the Persian Gulf Oil supply has been "A Clear and Present Danger to the United States and the Planet". The Persian Gulf as 2/3s of the Planets proven oil reserves and production of oil in the Persian Gulf is done far more cheaply there than any where else in the world. The price everyone pays around the world for Energy is directly impacted by the supply available from the Persian Gulf. If the planet is cut off from the supply of oil in the Persian Gulf, the global economy would completely collapse. The reduction in supply from the Persian Gulf would create a massive surge in price for the remaining oil produced in other parts of the planet. Within months, the planet would be experiencing the worst global economic depression in the history of the planet with incaculable effects on every country.
This is why the United States and the rest of the planets survival or at the very least economic survival depends on the stable free flow of Oil from the Persian Gulf. So the question of what threat Saddam poses to the United States begins and ends with his ability to seize and or sabotage the oil fields in Kuwait and more importantly Saudi Arabia. WMD could significantly aid Saddam in any future adventure he had in mind in the Persian Gulf. This is WHY in the 1991 GULF WAR ceacefire agreement, Saddam was forced to Verfiably Disarm of all WMD. Saddam's continued possession of any WMD or WMD programs was determined by the international community to be a clear and present danger to the planet. Saddam was required to verifiably disarm of this WMD or face renewed military action to insure that he was disarmed.
The need for Saddam to cooperate with the disarmament process or face military action is not anything new created by George W. Bush's administration.
It remains a fact today in August of 2005, that Saddam NEVER verifiably disarmed of his entire WMD program. Currently thousands of stocks of Saddam's WMD program remain unaccounted for.
The American people and the rest of the worlds governments supported the 1991 Gulf War to remove Saddam from Kuwait. They also supported the containment measures put in place which required Saddam's cooperation on disarmament issues after that war, but authorized military action if Saddam failed to meet his obligations which was vital the security of the region, the United States and the world.
Saddam completely stopped all cooperation in November of 1998 and the Inspectors were forced out. Despite large bombing campaigns, No Fly Zones where US and coalition fighters planes were shot at every day with the planes bombing in return, Saddam would not let the inspectors back in. Sanctions and the Weapons embargo, key and necessary components of any containment strategy were falling apart. Saddam was now profiting to the tune of Billions of dollars from the blackmarket of goods that passed across the Iraqi border.
No inspectors on the ground, Saddam having failed to comply with any of the resolutions in respect to disarmament, Sanctions falling apart, the Weapons embargo falling apart, all of the key aspects of containment were gone or soon to totally come apart. Limited airstrikes, also apart of the containment policy was now being undermind by opposition from the governments where US planes would fly from.
It is debatable whether the containment strategy could have worked in the long run even if all of the aspects of it were being fully enforced. The fact that most of the containment startegy and policy had fallen apart was another reason why military action to remove Saddam was the only way to insure the security of the region.
The central case for military action to remove Saddam did not rest on bits and pieces of intelligence that later turned out to be inaccurate after the coalition had removed Saddam and for the first time ever had the opportunity to examine the entire country in a way that was not possible while Saddam was still in power.
The central case for military action against Saddam is found in resolution 1441. On September 12, 2002 , George Bush went to the UN and stated the case against Saddam at UN HQ in New York. One week later on September 19, he asked Congress for the authority to use military force to meet US security needs in the Persian Gulf if Saddam continued to fail to comply with his obligation. The Congress deliberated and discuss given the President authorization and after several weeks of debate, it gave the President the authorization to go to war against Saddam if Saddam failed to comply with his obligations. The vote took place on October 11, 2002. Virtually all Republicans voted for the approval and a majority of Democrats in both the House and Senate voted to give the President approval as well. This is in stark contrast to the vote to give Bush's father the authority to remove Saddam's military from Kuwait in 1991. Then the resolution in Congress only past by a few votes. After October 11, 2002, the debate was OVER in the United States. The President had the authority he needed to prosecute a war against Saddam. Certainly the debate within the media would continue as it always does and the President would continue to give speechs on the issue to counter critics of administration policy. The debate then went to the UN and the UN passed UN resolution 1441 authorizing the use of force against Saddam if he failed to comply which he did. This resolution was passed in November 2002.
The central justification for the war was always Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm of WMD as well as cooperate with the international community on many issues related to the disarmament and security issues in the region justification. The justification for the war has never been what the Democrats would or the Presidents critics would like to believe was the justification because of the political points they think they can score by claiming the president mis-led the public because intelligence sample b turned out to be inaccurate.
Bits and pieces of intelligence prior to the first Gulf War in 1991 claimed that Saddam was still years away from building a nuclear weapon. To the shock in horror of the intelligence community, it was discovered only a few months after the end of the first Gulf War that Saddam was only months away from getting a Nuclear weapon. That is the nature of intelligence, which is why the central case for war never rested on any particular piece of intelligence information, but rather on Saddam's failure to cooperate with the international community with respect to the verifiable disarmament of his entire WMD program.
people still use the word hippy? Why not just pink-commie?
