Bush administration and the WMD: why not level with the American people?

[Ripsnort]

Better safe...then "60,000 dead" sorry.

[Heater]

Originally posted by banana
I don't understand why Bush just doesn't come right out and say that the administration was wrong about WMD, and get on with life? Isn't it just fueling the fire of opposition to continue to insist that there are WMD waiting to be discovered?

If I were him, I'd come clean, admit that they had made a mistake about the WMD, and then focus on the fact that Saddam was a bad guy, etc. I think the country would accept the explanation that certain intelligence led us to believe of the existence of WMD in Iraq, and that unfortunately, that intelligence was flawed.

The only reason I can think of that they are not doing this, is because either they still really believe there are WMD to find, or they purposely used the WMD as a rallying point for support, when in fact they knew they did not exist.

Cause he's a banana :aok

[Nakhui]

Originally posted by Kieran
"Yes" or "No"... did Bush speak of years of ignoring UN resolutions when stumping for action against Iraq? Simple question.

Simple Question... Does Bush wear Boxers or Briefs.
Certainly that has more relevance than the point your trying to make.

The debate wasn't about UN Sanctions being ignored... that was the rhetoric used to convince the UN to authorize the war - which it didn't.

The argument changed after the UN said no... and then it became 45 minutes or less to convince the congress.

The issue that was debated in Congress and the only issue, was if Iraq may have WMD capable of striking US interests in 45 minutes, that justifies pre-emptive war.

The White House provided intelligence briefs to select congressional members to support their point of view - even Hillary Clinton saw this information and voted for the war.

Now it turns out that intell was bunk.

Furthermore, there are over 100 citations of Bush/Powel/Chenney/Rumsfeld claiming AQ/Iraqi link, in press releases and interviews, prior to and during the war. These statements also have bearing on the decision being debated in congress because it would have given direct 9/11 cause and effect to justify war.

Now the administration has back away from those statements and are professioning no AQ/Iraq link... well frankly because they can not prove it.

Yet they were strongly persuasive and diligent in using those statements while they were seeking justification.

You know if all of this were to be put into a court of law... Bush and his boys would be cited for contempt of court, purjuring... and obstruction of justice.

But then politics doesn't fall under the same scrutiny.
Americans have no memory nor clue of the real issues involved.

Just like MTv... 5 seconds of this... 5 seconds of that... flip/flop... on to the next program.

[Rolex]

Executive Summary

So let's accept that 3 reasons were presented as justification for the invasion, then look at the scoreboard:

1. Saddam Hussein was hiding WMD and WMD development programs/material in violation of numerous UN resolutions. Saddam Hussein tried to import tons of uranium and was able to deliver WMD with 45 minutes.

Hussein did expel the inspectors, but they re-entered and found no hidden caches of weapons, but destroyed some old and unusable machinery that could have been used for weapons development. No WMD have been found and no workable development systems have been found.

Saddam Hussein did not try to import tons of uranium - that report turned out to be false.

Since no WMD have been found, none could have possibly been delivered in 45 minutes and the veracity of that report has been called into question.

2. Saddam Hussein was harboring and providing aid and facilities for training terrorists and therefore a threat to the United States.

No links to Al Queda, Osama bin Laden or terrorists planning on attacking America have ever been found and the Admistration has admitted such.

3. Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator and the Iraqis should be free from his rule.

Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator.

Governments and politicians do not act out of moral outrage against atrocities or out of a sense of humanity. If that were true, then the millions of people tortured and murdered in Sudan, Somalia and other nations (far beyond those who suffered under the thumb of Hussein) would have expected a full U.S. invasion also. Why not? The answers are right in front of us.

A) The WTC attackers were predominately Saudis, as Osama bin Laden is. His support came from deep within the Saudi culture and community. The U.S. is not about to give up Saudi oil even though more Saudi links can be found to WTC and no links can be found to Hussein.

B) Saudi Arabia and Venzuela provide the bulk of oil imports to the U.S. and the U.S. is no more independent of imported oil than it was during the oil embargo of the 1970s. Venezuela is a political and economic powderkeg and risky provider.

C) Iraq has the world's 2nd largest oil reserves and French and Russian companies had signed agreements with Hussein to become the distributors and handlers of Iraqi oil after the UN sanctions were lifted. German companies were also set to provide oil production facility construction and refurbishing.

The current adminstration was not going to let that happen. The contracts are now null and void since Hussein is no longer in power. If you think that this was not about oil for America, then you do not understand what makes America tick and you do not understand politics and power.

America is not opening up to poor Iraqi victims of Hussein because of some moral outrage. Americans are not collecting money and goods, holding 'Save the Iraqis' telethons and "Iraqi Aid" concerts. I continually hear and see people call the victims 'ragheads' and other derogatory terms. It is pure hypocrisy.

Every American family is comitted to pay about $1,000 for the invasion of Iraq - so far.

It has nothing to do with revenge for WTC because Hussein had nothing to do with it.

It has nothing to do with WMD because no WMD have been found.

It has nothing to do with making America safer since Americans are now scutinized, investigated, tracked, photographed, searched, wiretapped and even held in prison in legal limbo against the very ideals that made America great - The Constitution and balance of judiciary, executive and legislative branches.

By forfeiting the very ideals of democracy to bureaucrats and those who sustain their position by fear, Americans have forfeited their future and the respect of those who admired the original, beautiful ideals of America.

Wearing a flag pin on your lapel does not show your patriotism. Your actions to participate in your nations future by protecting and defending the constitution with your heart and soul are the only true patriotic acts. The invasion of Iraq was not an an event that Americans should feel pride about as something that made America safer or protected America from attack. It did neither.

The Revolutionary War was fought by revolutionaries who sacrificed their lives and fortunes for an idea. Who today would be willing to give up their fortunes to defend their freedom? Sadly, you wouldn't give up a thing, but prefer to just allow your freedom to be stolen by those promising false security.

President Truman once made a comment, and I can't remember it verbatim, but something to the effect that he pitied the average person who believed what they read in the news to be the true reasons for decisions and actions by governments.

[Kieran]

The only problems with your scenario are:

1. I was alive last year
2. I watched the news
3. I listened to what was said by both sides.

Seemed to me Bush, Powell, Rumsfield, Rice, all the cabinet members made a habit of running down the laundry list of offenses. I am not arguing which reasons motivated Congress to vote one way or another; I am stating as a fact the Bush administration did indeed discuss more than WMD.

Of course this game of saying the president only said one thing started almost immediately after the war ended. The weaker minded of the left gobble it up without question, the stronger minded know they have been dishonest when they say such things. A precious few acknowledge the truth.

[Dowding]

Where would the weight of spiel and rhetoric lie though, Kieren? With WMD or humanitarian concerns?

I think you're being dishonest when you say WMD was an equal consideration alongside Saddam's record on human rights, if that is indeed what you are implying. WMD was the major concern, its proliferation was the central consideration. We both know that.

[Kieran]

Originally posted by Dowding
Where would the weight of spiel and rhetoric lie though, Kieren? With WMD or humanitarian concerns?

I think you're being dishonest when you say WMD was an equal consideration alongside Saddam's record on human rights, if that is indeed what you are implying. WMD was the major concern, its proliferation was the central consideration. We both know that.

That's the thing, and it's my fault for not being clear; I am not saying that at all. Most definitely Bush stupidly made WMD the cornerstone of his case against Iraq. It is however unfair to say it is the ONLY thing he said, which is what the vast majority of people opposed to him are saying.

I would have been for the war regardless of WMD, because it was an inevitability. Better sooner than later in my mind. But that doesn't mean I give Bush a pass for being dishonest, IF it is proven he has been dishonest. Election is in November, IF the Dems can provide a viable candidate by then (big IF), I would happily vote for the Dems if proof of WMD cannot be found. Maybe even if they are. Not happy with Bush at the moment, that's for sure.