Nobody to match Bush

We've been over this territory before, multiple times in fact. At some point between 1998 and March 2003, very probably much nearer the end of that period, SH appears to have reached the reasonable conclusion that use of WMDs would be of little practical value against the US military, but would lead to the collapse of his political strategy.

I would suggest that he made a decision not to use WMD against the USA directly (indirectly is in question) as early as the Gulf War.

It's harder - in my opinion it's impossible - to answer the question of why SH did not extend full cooperation and offer evidence to the world, if he not only had destroyed his weapons but intended to allow the permanent eradication of his WMD programs. The reason answering this question is impossible appears rather obviously to be that SH never did intend to extend full cooperation and allow the permanent eradication of his WMD capacities.

Yes, difficult to understand what his plan actually was, if any. What we do seem to accept as fact though is:

1. Saddam has not been caught or verified as dead.
2. A reward has been issued, so the U.S. government considers him a continuing threat.
3. WMD that were though to exist have yet to be found.
4. The leader of Al Queda is missing and presumed to be alive.

One wonders if we are today, actually safer from Hussein and Bin Laden, and the threat of them potentially using WMD against the USA or our interests, either directly or indirectly.

Wasn't an objective of the war to increase national security, rather than increase national insecurity? True, people may "feel" safer, but are they? We certainly felt secure on 9/10.

Which is easier to control: A enemy whose location is known and managed, or an unknown enemy who has a stronger motive for revenge and destruction to those who dethroned him than he had previously?

[/i]The evidence of terrorist ties is actually rather open and shut - and includes the presence of AQ-linked groups and individuals in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq, open support for anti-Israel terrorist groups like Hamas, the captures and deaths of terrorists like Abu Nidal and leaders from the PFLP (one of whom was killed on the first-night attack on SH's leadership compound), the presence of large numbers of foreigners using terrorist tactics against the US military and Iraqi civilians, and the discovery of terrorist-training facilities with documentation, such as the large camp already described before the war at Salman Pak. During Gulf War I, the Iraqi regime also explicitly threatened to use terrorism internationally, a fact noted with "alarm" by the UNSC in its post-war resolutions. It also appears that exploratory discussions, including the exchange of visits, were held between Iraq and AQ. That those particular discussions may not have led to actual joint operations does not alter the fact that both the intention and the danger were established. The AQ testimony is that the alliances were rejected on OBL's side, but the decision could have been - or may even still be - revoked at any time.[/i]

I don't know if there is as much consensus to an open and shut case as you suggest.

I suspect that if truth be told equivalent Al Queda support facilities could be found in other countries that we have decided not to attack yet.

However, since most of this information is "classified" we don't really know at this time.

As for the evidence of WMD programs, ambitions, and so on, it is plentiful and undeniable. In addition to the previously observed WMD stockpiles and WMD usage, after the war elements critical to WMD programs, including the nuclear program, have been uncovered - items and extensive documentation held in contravention of disarmament agreements and resolutions. The only things still lacking in the picture, and the subject of so much anti-Bush focus, are deliverable battlefield munitions and large quantities of precursor chemicals and toxins. These may have been destroyed or securely hidden: Even if held intact, the core elements would not take up much space, could be made very difficult to find, and could even have been transported outside the country.

That he had WMD is not a question. Nor is it a question that he had a chance to use them twice in direct conflict with the USA and decided not to....yet our concern was that he would use them in the future against the USA?

Yes, you make a case that the WMD were likely contained within the borders of Iraq prior to the most recent war, and now are likely dispersed into the hands of who knows how many terrorists.

Logically:

1. There were massive amounts of WMD that were an immediate and sufficient threat to National Security to justify pre-emption.
2. There were not massive amounts of WMD, hence no immediate threat to National Security, hence questionable need for pre-emption.
3. There were massive amounts of WMD, but Saddam made a choice to destroy them.
4. There were massive amounts of WMD, but Saddam made a choice to hid them within the borders of his country.
5. There were massive amounts of WMD, but Saddam made a choice to move them out of Iraq into neighboring countries and into the hands of terrorists

Winning the war on terrorism? I am not so certain.

Tell me you would not feel safer if we found the WMD, and we actually destroyed them ourselves.

Your analysis is based on misreading both of the evidence and of my statements. What may confuse you is that I also believe that, independently of such items as those outlined above, SH's refusal to remove any uncertainty about them and his flagrant violations of ceasefire agreements, related resolutions, and other norms of international conduct already provided more than adequate grounds for war at whatever time and under whatever circumstances we chose.

Believe it or not, my argument is not about what you think was right, but what actually was right for Bush to do. I accept your opinion, but that doesn't make it factual, nor correct....nor does it make my opinions factual or correct. It simply means that I have doubts and questions, and you have none....based on the information in front of you that you deem to be complete.

Regarding your comments that I misread your statements, we get back to he said, she said. From your perspective, I always misread your statements, yet you never think that perhaps you have been less than clear.

What is it like to always feel blameless when someone doesn't agree with you?


Uh... you're worried we might pre-emptively attack the remaining Cherokees?

As worried as I am about the loony left or people who are writing columns exercising there right to free speech concerning the administration and their exercise of power and their policy.

 

Contrary to your assertions, the text you refer to, from the Congressional Authorization, does not even mention weapons of mass destruction. It does mention consistency with the war on terror and with combating overall threats to national security, along with enforcement of all UN resolutions - which included issues relating to the liberation of the Iraqi people as well as diverse unfulfilled obligations of Iraq's.

Directly, no. However, ask any American what the U.N. resolution was about that is referred to in that document, and see what the consensus understanding is and was.


There never can be inarguable "conclusions" on such matters. The decisions to go to war, and the precise means and timing, are always issues of judgment or "opinion." It was, for instance, FDR's opinion, after Pearl Harbor, that protection of US interests were better served by going on the offensive both in Europe and the Far East rather than by surrendering or retreating. It was Lincoln's opinion that going to war was preferable to allowing the Southern states to secede. It was Truman's opinion that the threat of Communist expansion warranted military action in Korea. If the other sides had been consulted, they might have urged different conclusions.

Indeed, there can be question of right and wrong, but was there a question with FDR, Lincoln, Eisenhower in Korea, etc. that the danger as laid out by those leaders was real and not fabricated?

There was resistance to the wars in Korea and Vietnam on the basis of a central question of ideology, that is did we have a right to engage and participate in a civil war to stop the spread and aggression of communism.

The war with Saddam was not about ideology, or even Muslim Fundamentalism...it was about WMD primarily, and the immediate threat they held over the USA.

There is no doubt whatsoever that SH repeatedly violated virtually all elements of ceasefire agreements and related resolutions, not least by maintaining WMD programs and stockpiles throughout the '90s, and by failing the critical requirement of removing any reasonable doubt as to his capacities and intentions.

No doubt, no argument that he violated the terms of his agreement.

Argument and doubt that we did the right thing by exercising only the choice of war when alternative choices were available and favored by the U.N.? Yes.


No, a point you don't seem able to process: Trying to imagine whether Bush could have persuaded the country to go to war in the absence of post-9/11 fears and concerns over Iraq's WMD intentions and capacities is what makes no sense. The change in US policy and perceptions after 9/11 along with the long history of Iraq's WMD and other violations and aggressions were central to the decision, and could not be removed from the calculation, whether based on what was known then or what is suspected now.

Why doesn't it make sense to you? Are you unable to think hypothetically?


After 9/11, Bush clearly enunciated an activist policy regarding terrorist threats and WMDs. It was made crystal clear to SH that if he did not come into full compliance with international inspections and monitoring, the standing policy of regime change would be effectuated.

Yes, we threatened him, hoping the threat would work. It didn't, or we didn't give it enough time to work, that is the debate, right?

No, you appear to demand a particular kind of WMD evidence (and now terrorism-related evidence as well, apparently) that I do not consider central to the case for war. (I have no idea what you expected to find in relation to terrorism - it's a theme you've only recently introduced.)

Clearly you personally do not consider WMD central to the war, heck you may have favored the war for any number of reasons.

You are happy we went to war, well Mazeltov. However, I don't think your personal feelings are all that relevant to the debate of whether or not Bush acted properly. Let's deal with fact, not your feelings, ok?

There is a lot you consider that falls under the heading of opinion, which is fine.

Some fellow said today that Bush was honest. I asked him for proof of his feelings....and he had none.

Nor do I have proof for my feelings of distrust for Bush, I have made my argument about his dry drunk status, and am attempting to present facts that raise doubt about his true agenda.

My issue is not with your reasons, but with the sales pitch given by Bush and company, and whether or not the pitch was based in fact and honesty, or whether or not it was manipulative and serving a hidden agenda.

I introduced terrorism because it is brought up by others. I am happy to take that out of the equation and focus solely on WMD as the reason given for immediate military action.


Many Americans apparently view reality differently than you do. It is presumptuous of you to attribute the difference to "denial" or "apathy."

Answered previously.

You also didn't answer the question as to just how "urgent" and urgent in what way the threat would have had to have been to justify action, in your opinion. Apparently, you would only have been satisfied by the discovery by dangers so "imminent" that that they could be addressed only at an intolerable cost.

This is a great question, and I honestly don't have the answer. Nor do I have the answer to the need to balance national security and individual freedoms.

We are bound to make mistakes, and I wager we can look back in 20 years and see how Bush and company, including the American people had a knee jerk reaction to 9/11, and as a result of that made many errors.

Errors are forgivable. The are the sign of humanity.

What isn't forgivable, is when people make errors, and cover them up....just ask Bill Clinton.

If Bush came on TV right now, and made a heartfelt plea to the American people for forgiveness for stretching the truth because he honestly believed he did what was in the best interest of this country, I don't know if I would buy that, but my guess is that his popularity would skyrocket.

Somehow, we expect our presidents to be perfect, and they try to act as if they are, rather than include the rest of humanity in their tasks.

America is a strange country. We love to build people up, love to knock them down, and then love to forgive them when they admit they have fallen.

It is when they don't ask for forgiveness that we begin to really hate them.

 

In Blair We Trust
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF - NY Times


LONDON


One of the saddest results of our war in Iraq is that it may finish off Tony Blair before Saddam Hussein.

Everywhere I go in Britain, people dismiss Mr. Blair as President Bush's poodle. Mr. Blair's Labor Party has fallen behind the Conservatives in the latest poll, for only the second time in 11 years. "The Iraq critics think that the prime minister has betrayed his country to a Texas gunslinger," William Rees-Mogg noted in The Times of London.

So it'll sound foolish when I suggest that President Bush should study Mr. Blair and learn a few things. But on the other hand, everybody likes Mr. Blair but the Brits.

A poll by the Pew Research Center found that Mr. Blair was the world leader Americans trusted most (Mr. Bush ranked second), respected by 83 percent of Americans, and he was also highly esteemed in countries as diverse as Australia and Nigeria. More interesting, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair took very similar positions over the last couple of years, and both exaggerated the Iraqi threat — and yet Mr. Blair is perhaps the leading statesman in the world today and Mr. Bush is regarded by much of the globe as a dimwitted cowboy. Or, as an Oxford don put it to me after perhaps too much sherry, "a buffoon."

The main reason is that the White House overdosed on moral clarity.

Mr. Bush always exudes a sense that the issues are crystal clear and that anyone who disagrees with him is playing political games. This fervor worked fine in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and in proper doses, moral clarity is admirable. But too much hobbles policy-making and insults our intelligence.

Mr. Blair stands with Mr. Bush on Iraq but acknowledges the complexity of the issues.

"Yes, there are countries that disagree with what we are doing; I mean, there's no point in hiding it — there's been a division," Mr. Blair told reporters at Camp David early in the war, when the two leaders were asked about opposition to the war among allies. But Mr. Bush gave no ground, saying: "We've got a huge coalition. . . . I'm very pleased with the size of our coalition."

Mr. Blair met Pope John Paul II and the archbishop of Canterbury to discuss their opposition to the war. But President Bush refused to discuss objections to the war with the head of the National Council of Churches or even the head of his own church, the United Methodists.

Political insults are a traditional British sport (Churchill famously described his rival Clement Atlee as a sheep in sheep's clothing, and as a modest man with much to be modest about). But Mr. Blair dignifies his opponents by grappling with their arguments in a way that helps preserve civility — and that we Americans can learn from.

Mr. Bush is not the dummy his critics perceive. My take is that he's very bright in a street-smarts way: he's witty and has a great memory for faces, and his old girlfriends speak more highly of him than many women do of their husbands. But he's also less interested in ideas than perhaps anybody I've ever interviewed, and his intelligence is all practical and not a bit intellectual. Nuance isn't his natural state, and yet he gives us glimmers to show he can achieve it.

The last time Mr. Bush seemed genuinely to wrestle with an issue was the summer of 2001, when he acknowledged the toughness of the stem cell debate. He showed an impressive willingness to puzzle through stem cell policy and seek a compromise.

If Mr. Bush had pursued that same model of policy-making into Iraq, then we would not have alienated our allies or bungled postwar planning because of rosy assumptions.

In 1979, James Fallows wrote a legendary critique of President Jimmy Carter's "Passionless Presidency." He argued that Mr. Carter was a smart, decent man who excelled in details but catastrophically lacked a sweeping vision to inspire the country and animate his presidency.

Well, now we've got a Passionate Presidency. But it's so focused on big-picture ideological campaigns that it doesn't bother with details (like what we will do with Iraq after we've conquered it). Mr. Blair offers a third way — passion tethered to practicality, idealism without ideologues.

Given that Mr. Blair might end up with time on his hands, perhaps Mr. Bush could hire him as an adviser.

 

Does anyone have the approval of Bush Sr. at the same point in his first (and only) term? Post-war popular presidents both, the big difference is the media coverage of ongoing casualties in Iraq. If our troops keep waking up to a 1 in 120000 chance of being killed each day we'll have trouble keeping this thing from escalating to 300 or 400 thousand troops (including international forces).

And had anyone heard of Bill Clinton at the same time in Bush Sr.'s presidency? The presidential election cycle starts earlier each time around. That might also be a big factor in who challenges Bush in the next election.

We'll see. And I say "Bring it on!!!"

 

Dubya Talk


Wait for us to succeed peace. Wait for us to have two states, side by side -- is for everybody coming together to deny the killers the opportunity to destroy.
-- Kennebunkport, Maine, June 15, 2003


I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things.
-- aboard AirForce One, June 4 2003


So one of my visits -- one of the reasons I'm visiting here is to ask the question to people. Because if there's -- moving too slow, or people are saying one thing and the other thing is not happening, now is the time to find out.
-- Pierce City, MO, May 13, 2003


I know there's some concern about overstating of numbers, you know, invest in my company because the sky's the limit. We may not be cash flowing much, but the sky's the limit. Well, when you pay dividends, that sky's the limit business doesn't hunt.
-- Kennesaw, GA, February 20, 2003


The solid truth of the matter is, when you find -- if you want to help heal the hurt -- if you want to hurt people and help people in pain, the best way to do so is to call upon the great strength of the country, which is the compassion of our fellow Americans.
-- Bentonville, AR, November 4, 2002


There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again.
-- East Literature Magnet School, Nashville, Tennessee, September 17, 2002.


http://www.thedubyareport.com/quotes.html

 

--Michael Barone

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/030714/opinion/14pol.htm

Paul J. Cella

http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/defensewrapper.jsp?PID=1051-350&CID=1051-070703C

 

"Core Democrats have an emotional investment in the idea that George W. Bush is an idiot; if conservatives believe they are conservative because they have more common sense than other people, liberals believe they are liberal because they are smarter than other people. At the heart of their hatred of Bush is snobbery. Gephardt, Lieberman, Graham, and Edwards don't exude this snobbery. Dean and Kerry do. This could give whichever of them survives New Hampshire an edge with core Democrats. The Democrats' problem is that at least 70 percent of voters do not share their contempt for Bush and find it off-putting. Outside a Bush fundraiser last week one protester's sign read, "France was right." That is not a winning slogan in an American election."

Core Republicans had an emotional investment in the idea that Clinton was so bad for the country, that they spent millions and millions trying to oust him from the White House, despite the public opinions polls that showed the people wanted Clinton to stay in office.

If liberals believe they are liberal because they are smarter than other people, conservative believe they are conservative because they believe they are morally right on all the issues.

At the heart of their hatred of Clinton is a conservative sense of moral superiority.

The Democrats problem right now is that economy is strong enough at present to get Bush re-elected. If the economy falters the way it did for the old man, Jr. won't get re-elected.

 

Bush Defends U.S. Justification for Iraq War

Reuters
Wednesday, July 9, 2003; 6:31 PM

By Randall Mikkelsen

PRETORIA (Reuters) - President Bush said on Wednesday he remained confident the Iraq war was right, even though the White House acknowledged it had been a mistake to accuse Saddam Hussein of trying to buy uranium from Niger.

"I am absolutely confident in the decision I made," said Bush, who ordered U.S.-led forces to invade Iraq on the basis of intelligence which said Saddam had or was developing weapons of mass destruction.

"There's no doubt in my mind that when it's all said and done the facts will show the world the truth," Bush told a joint news conference with South African President Thabo Mbeki.

Asked for the first time about the uranium issue, Bush said: "There's going to be a lot of attempts to rewrite history."

The White House has acknowledged Bush relied on now discredited information when he said in a State of the Union speech in January the Iraqi leader tried to buy uranium from the West African state of Niger for its weapons programs.

But White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said on Wednesday it was "one single sentence" in a larger case against Iraq that remained valid.

But close U.S. ally Britain defended its own allegation that Saddam had sought uranium from Niger, saying its evidence was separate from the information used by Washington.

Prime Minister Tony Blair's spokesman said on Wednesday Britain had "different knowledge" from the United States to back up its charge, set out in Blair's September 2002 dossier on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction.

"Our information comes from good, reliable sources..," said a British official. He declined to say who had provided it.

"SADDAM WAS THREAT TO WORLD PEACE"

The United States and Britain have found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction since toppling Saddam on April 9.

But Bush said he was confident Saddam had had a weapons of mass destruction program and that Washington had underestimated Iraq's nuclear progress before the 1991 Gulf War.

"Saddam Hussein was a threat to world peace. And there's no doubt in my mind that the United States...did the right thing in removing him from power," Bush said.

The annual State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress is one of the most visible and important speeches that a U.S. president can make, with each line reflecting a careful assessment of White House priorities.

Fleischer said the uranium charge, based on documents purporting to show Iraqi officials were seeking to buy the material from Niger, should not have been in the speech.

Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted on Wednesday that he thought the Niger link was not suitable for him to use when he made the case against Iraq in front of the United Nations shortly after Bush's State of the Union speech.

"I did not use it in the formal presentation I made on the 5th of February because by then there was such controversy about it, and as we looked at all that we knew about it, it did not seem to be the kind of claim that I should take into the U.N," Powell told BBC television in Pretoria while on an African trip with Bush.

The documents, obtained by European intelligence agencies, are now accepted as forgeries.

"With the advantage of hindsight...this information should not have risen to the level of a presidential speech," Fleischer said.

A former U.S. ambassador, asked to investigate an intelligence report alleging the uranium purchase bid, said in a New York Times article on Sunday he had told Washington months before the speech that such a transaction was "highly doubtful."

The White House's National Security Council spokesman Michael Anton said on Tuesday that in the run-up to the speech, a national intelligence estimate referred to attempts by Iraq to acquire uranium from "several countries in Africa."

Democrats seized on the White House admission to demand a full review of how Bush's Republican administration used intelligence to make the case for war in Iraq.

 

I could have cared less what Clinton did during his private life. However, he was the one who chose to lie under oath. I can't think of any human being in the history of the world that has broken basically every type of major law and committed high crimes while in office and still walks around a free man and loved still by many hard-core democrats.

Just keep in mind that Clinton was impeached for what he did. It may not have been a simple act of fellatio, but rather his constant lying under oath.

Now his wife is sitting in New York Senate like she has a clue how New Yorkers live and feel.

The entire "Clinton" saga of this nation's timeline has just really gotten old.

Now Clinton is upset because of a two-term limit. Had he been born while Rome was still standing, I'd place money that he'd eventually wind up like Emperor Nero. The man is in love with himself.

And don't give Clinton credit for the economy.

 

Although this statement engages a bit of hyperbole, I agree with the sentiment. I should also note that if one were to replace the word "democrats" with "republicans" I'd have thought the statement was about Richard Nixon in the late 70's.

I guess the "hard-core", democrat or republican, believe that the faults of their favored political figureheads are insignificant.