Wow dude. Linking to a site like that really kind of shoots down your credibility. It reads like every other nutbag site out there, complete with the big text, coloured fonts, "tall" site design, and gratuitous pictures.
If you actually read it, you'll notice that most of the claims aren't backed up well if at all. A paragraph will make numerous claims, and then at the end have a citation. That citation, upon inspection, will only back up one of the claims made, leaving the rest unsupported. Much of the information cited is also very old, when the situation was very different, and many of the sources are equally dubious, simple op-eds, or information taken out of context.
Linking to a site like that is just begging to be laughed at. I'm sorry.
Okay, now I'm going home for lunch to watch Arrested Development season 3 - S.O.B.s on DVD. I love that show, and CURSE YOU TO HELL, FOX for pulling it from the air. Maybe I'll also watch the Exit Strategy episode.
1) Saddam invaded Kuwait because he felt the US did not care if he did it or not. 2) Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm were put together to remove Saddam from Kuwait. 3) Iraq itself was not invaded as the region did not want Saddam ousted entirely, they just wanted him out of Kuwait. 4) A plethora of UN resolutions were passed in regards to dealing with Iraq. 5) Inspection Teams were put together though they were not very effective. 6) No fly zones were established in southern and northern Iraq. 7) British and American warplanes were often "pinged" by ground-based Iraqi air defense emplacements, which was against the rules for the no fly zones. 8) Saddam was playing a dangerous game of "tell the inspectors their are no WMDs" while at the same time telling his neighbors, "Oh yeah, I got those WMDS where those UN people will never find them!" 9) After the terrorist attacks on 9/11 everything changed. We could no longer take the risk of Saddam having WMDs. A final line in the sand was drawn, a line which he crossed and was invaded for.
In regards to the "pre-text" for war:
1) The First Gulf-War ended in a "cease fire" and the new war could be considered a "resumption of hostilities" 2) Bush did not say "WMDs are out only reason"
What are my views on the whole thing?
From what I have read the mistake that lead us into this mess was made by American Ambassador April Glaspie when he said the following to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in late July 1990:
We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late ’60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via [Chadli] Klibi [then Arab League General Secretary] or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly.
To me, that is America giving Iraq a green light to annex Kuwait.
Steve's primary argument for the invasion was that the UN resolutions were passed against Iraq. The US used these as part of the pretext for the invasion. If the US is going to buck the will of the UN in order to act militarily on its own, it really has no place citing UN resolutions as part of the justification for belligerence.
Why the hell not? Are you saying that we should have ignored Iraq's failure to abide by UN sanctions? That would make us a joke. The UN can do what it wants, but our national security takes precedence.
Now... you can argue how we were wrong, and I would agree. But... any good government takes all information into account, including the behavior of Iraq as it relates to the United Nations. Using your logic, we should have just ignored Hitler's invasion of Poland, France, etc. After all, that was just a European issue.
The real question is whether our intelligence made an honest mistake, or whether we were negligent in coming to the conclusions that led to the invasion.
Again, I'm not a fan of the Iraq war, but it certainly was appropriate for us to look at Iraq's stance regarding the UN, and use that information however we damn please.
1) Saddam invaded Kuwait because he felt the US did not care if he did it or not.
Saddam invaded Kuwait for oil and to get access to the sea for his landlocked country. It was a war of acquiring resources that while evil, at least had reasons based in reality.
2) Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm were put together to remove Saddam from Kuwait. 3) Iraq itself was not invaded as the region did not want Saddam ousted entirely, they just wanted him out of Kuwait.
I'll let George Bush Sr. tell you why he didn't conquer Iraq back in the day.
4) A plethora of UN resolutions were passed in regards to dealing with Iraq. 5) Inspection Teams were put together though they were not very effective.
Read what Hans Blix says. He was the inspector. He disagrees with you. I thought I covered this already.
6) No fly zones were established in southern and northern Iraq. 7) British and American warplanes were often "pinged" by ground-based Iraqi air defense emplacements, which was against the rules for the no fly zones. 8) Saddam was playing a dangerous game of "tell the inspectors their are no WMDs" while at the same time telling his neighbors, "Oh yeah, I got those WMDS where those UN people will never find them!" 9) After the terrorist attacks on 9/11 everything changed. We could no longer take the risk of Saddam having WMDs. A final line in the sand was drawn, a line which he crossed and was invaded for.
Provide evidence for items 7 and 8. I never heard of such things happening. As for number 9 what was the risk of Saddam having WMDs? 0% chance. Everyone knew it was a 0% chance. There was no risk to take. Even if he had them, which everyone knew he did not, he couldn't use them. 0% chance of having, 0% chance of using. If you think we can't take a 0% risk, what risk can we take? Better hide in your bomb shelter and never come out. Also, what is this "line in the sand" you keep referring to and how did Saddam cross it? Remember to provide evidence that it actually happened and isn't made up crazy talk.
Why the hell not? Are you saying that we should haveignoredIraq's failure to abide by UN sanctions? That would make us a joke. The UN can do what it wants, but our national security takes precedence.
If Iraq did fail to abide by UN sanctions, then it is up to the UN to do something. If you have kid and you have a rule they can't swear or they will be spanked. You would probably still be upset if their teacher enforced your rule and spanked your kid. It was the UNs rule, it's up to the UN to enforce it. Also, lots of people disobey UN sanctions all the time. Heck, the US disobeyed the UN by invading Iraq. I guess that means we should be invaded. Even if Iraq did blatantly disobey the UN and they should have been punished for it, the punishment of complete invasion was too crazy. It's like a death sentence for jaywalking.
Now... you can argue how we were wrong, and I would agree. But... any good government takesallinformation into account, including the behavior of Iraq as it relates to the United Nations. Using your logic, we should have just ignored Hitler's invasion of Poland, France, etc. After all, that was just a European issue.
Godwin!
The real question is whether our intelligence made an honest mistake, or whether we were negligent in coming to the conclusions that led to the invasion.
The intelligence did not make an honest mistake. The intelligence was spot-on. All of the intelligence and evidence clearly indicated that Iraq was not a threat and they had no weapons. The administration decided to ignore this intelligence and invade anyway.
Yes, one of Saddam's reasons for annexing Kuwait (but not the only reason) was oil.
Saddam was indebted to many of his neighbors after the Iran-Iraq war. He wanted to drive the price of oil up so he could use oil money to pay off his country's debts. What was Kuwait's response? They increased oil production to keep the price down.
Saddam felt the other Arab countries in the region owed him for keeping the Persians at bay.
Why are you asking me to back up my claim and not asking Apreche to back up his claim of the exact opposite?
Apreche did so with Hans Blix's book. The man was there looking for the weapons with a UN mandate, and found nothing. He and his team were entirely convinced that Iraq had no such weapons, a conclusion which they documented thoroughly.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002
"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002
"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002
"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
If Iraq did fail to abide by UN sanctions, then it is up to the UN to do something.
Man, are you simplistic about this. If the UN tells a country not to do something that could threaten our national security, and they go ahead and do it anyway - you are telling me that we have to sit there with our thumbs up our asses if the UN does nothing?
God help us if you are every in charge of our national security. Or are you just comfortable with France, China and Russia controlling our national security?
Apreche did so with Hans Blix's book. The man was there looking for the weapons with a UN mandate, and found nothing. He and his team were entirely convinced that Iraq had no such weapons, a conclusion which they documented thoroughly.
Keep in mind that Hans Blix is pissed off at the US for interfering with his UN limp-dicked inspection program. He does have some bias - not that I blame him.
Umm... HMTKSteve... those comments aren't proof that our intelligence was spot on. They are just proof that some people chose to believe incorrect intelligence.
Apreche did so with Hans Blix's book. The man was there looking for the weapons with a UN mandate, and found nothing. He and his team were entirely convinced that Iraq had no such weapons, a conclusion which they documented thoroughly.
Keep in mind that Hans Blix is pissed off at the US for interfering with his UN limp-dicked inspection program. He does have some bias - not that I blame him.
That is correct. There may have been some disagreement within the US Intelligence community prior to the war but the global Intelligence community was in agreement.
Umm... HMTKSteve... those comments aren't proof that our intelligence was spot on. They are just proof that some people chose to believe incorrect intelligence.
The Intelligence *may* have been faulty but... EVERYONE was working with the same Intelligence.
Hindsight is always 20/20. Going by the Intelligence we had at the begining of the war, the war was entirely justified. to cry out now that the war is now "illegal" or "unjustified" is revisionist bullshit.
Example:
You are walking down the street and you see a man you recognize from the FBI most wanted list approaching you. He has what looks like a gun in his jacket pocket pointed at you. You believe this man to be armed and dangerous as that is what the FBI poster said. You decide to risk it and get the drop on him by ducking, pulling out your own gun and shooting him. He dies. When the cops arrive they find out it is the man but he only had a small water pistol in his pocket.
Iraq was required to abide by an inspection process. Iraq continually f*cked with this process. Middle Eastern terrorists were plotting ways to kill Americans. In my book, Iraq was subject to consequences for failing to abide by the inspection process.
It wasn't up to the USA to prove that Iraq had anything. It was up to Iraq to comply with inspections so the existence of WMD could be disproved. Since they didn't cooperate... we get to assume that they have WMD.
Having said that, I wouldn't have invaded. I would have lobbed a few cruise missiles until they got the point. If they didn't, I would have increased my response until they did figure it out.
Wow Steve... You quoted a bunch of politicians who had no direct knowledge of the underlying intelligence. That's far from proof. It was almost all rhetoric, hearsay, and unsubstantiated claims, most of which were furthermore taken out of context. Bravo.
Even better, many of them were from long before the runup to the invasion, when the threats were indeed more credible. President Clinton responded by authorizing air strikes against suspected weapon manufacturing sites in response. A lot of time passed between then and the invasion, and during that time it became more and more apparent that there were in fact no weapons.
Consider the following, from the US Senate's post-invasion investigation.
Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community’s October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence.
The intelligence said there was clearly no credible threat. Politicians misinterpreted and mischaracterized the intel in order to push their own agenda.
Man, are you simplistic about this. If the UN tells a country not to do something that could threaten our national security, and they go ahead and do it anyway - you are telling me that we have to sit there with our thumbs up our asses if the UN does nothing?
I guess if you take that statement on it's own, then yes. My point is that there was not a threat to national security. If there were indeed a real threat to our national security and the UN didn't act, then I probably would do something. However, if there were a real threat to national security, the UN would probably do something.
Umm... HMTKSteve... those comments aren't proof that our intelligence was spot on. They are just proof that some people chose to believe incorrect intelligence.
Thank you for saying what I was going to say. Every one of those quotes is from a politician. It's no more evidence than you or me saying stuff. If you ask some non eye-witness if OJ did it, you can't submit that as evidence to the court. An official report from a detective, that's evidence. An official report from a weapons inspector is evidence. A politician making a speech, not evidence. Unless of course, you might be arguing that so and so politician said X, Y and Z. In that case, their speech is the only evidence you need.
My point is that there was not a threat to national security.
You only know that because of hindsight. I think that's why your argument is compromised. It gets me back to my point that the question is why our intelligence was faulty. But... you can't escape the fact that our intelligence was saying that there were WMDs.
My point is that there was not a threat to national security.
You only know that because of hindsight. I think that's why your argument is compromised. It gets me back to my point that the question iswhyour intelligence was faulty. But... you can't escape the fact that our intelligence was saying that there were WMDs.
That's why I'm quoting people from BEFORE the invasion and not after.
Our pre-invasion Intelligence said he was a threat and needed to be dealt with. Politicians in the opposition party agreed he was a threat.
Don't you think that if there was a credible source of evidence, in opposition to the pre-war Intelligence, Democrats would have latched onto it to stop the war from happening?
If you want to argue our pre-war Intelligence proved faulty after-the-fact I will agree with you.
If you are trying to imply that we knew ahead-of-time that the Intelligence was faulty then I disagree.
You only know that because of hindsight. I think that's why your argument is compromised. It gets me back to my point that the question iswhyour intelligence was faulty. But... you can't escape the fact that our intelligence was saying that there were WMDs.
Rym covered that. The pro-WMD intelligence was valid only years before the invasion. Between then and the invasion time we learned the information was false. Take for example the state of the union address where Bush said Iraq was buying yellow cake in Africa. It was false information, and everybody in the intelligence community knew it was false information. Bush said it anyway. We knew the intelligence was wrong before we invaded.
But... you can't escape the fact that our intelligence was saying that there were WMDs.
Actually, according to the Senate report I cited, the intelligence itself was unclear, and leaned heavily toward there being no weapons. Certain politicians selectively revealed specific intelligence while hiding or ignoring other intelligence in order to justify an invasion. There was substantial evidence that intelligence was cherry-picked and in some cases outright faked. The underlying information said fairly clearly that there were no weapons, and the administration was briefed as such.
You only know that because of hindsight.
I knew that the moment Bush first said the word Iraq, and I said as much. Many intelligent and rational people did. The UN concurred. Don't think I wasn't against this farce of a war from the very start.
Then the Democrats who overwhelmingly supported the war have some real brass balls complaining about it.
True that! But even worse are the Republicans who aren't complaining about it after it's an obvious failure.
Democracts and Republicans both say : "Let's all steer this boat into the iceberg, it will be awesome!" Crash! Democrats say: "Oh shit, that was a bad idea! I don't know what to do, but let's do something to fix this maybe." Republicans say: "We had to crash into that iceberg. If I had another chance, I'd crash into it again."
I really think they're all idiots, and there's not much we can do to make this situation any better. However, I will at least side closer with someone who says they're going to try to fix it than I will with someone who denies there is a problem.
Comments
Saddam helped put George Bluth Sr. in prison!
If you actually read it, you'll notice that most of the claims aren't backed up well if at all. A paragraph will make numerous claims, and then at the end have a citation. That citation, upon inspection, will only back up one of the claims made, leaving the rest unsupported. Much of the information cited is also very old, when the situation was very different, and many of the sources are equally dubious, simple op-eds, or information taken out of context.
Linking to a site like that is just begging to be laughed at. I'm sorry.
I love that show, and CURSE YOU TO HELL, FOX for pulling it from the air.
Maybe I'll also watch the Exit Strategy episode.
1) Saddam invaded Kuwait because he felt the US did not care if he did it or not.
2) Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm were put together to remove Saddam from Kuwait.
3) Iraq itself was not invaded as the region did not want Saddam ousted entirely, they just wanted him out of Kuwait.
4) A plethora of UN resolutions were passed in regards to dealing with Iraq.
5) Inspection Teams were put together though they were not very effective.
6) No fly zones were established in southern and northern Iraq.
7) British and American warplanes were often "pinged" by ground-based Iraqi air defense emplacements, which was against the rules for the no fly zones.
8) Saddam was playing a dangerous game of "tell the inspectors their are no WMDs" while at the same time telling his neighbors, "Oh yeah, I got those WMDS where those UN people will never find them!"
9) After the terrorist attacks on 9/11 everything changed. We could no longer take the risk of Saddam having WMDs. A final line in the sand was drawn, a line which he crossed and was invaded for.
In regards to the "pre-text" for war:
1) The First Gulf-War ended in a "cease fire" and the new war could be considered a "resumption of hostilities"
2) Bush did not say "WMDs are out only reason"
What are my views on the whole thing?
From what I have read the mistake that lead us into this mess was made by American Ambassador April Glaspie when he said the following to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in late July 1990:
We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late ’60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via [Chadli] Klibi [then Arab League General Secretary] or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly.
To me, that is America giving Iraq a green light to annex Kuwait.
Saddam pays Palestinian Suicide Bomber families
Now... you can argue how we were wrong, and I would agree. But... any good government takes all information into account, including the behavior of Iraq as it relates to the United Nations. Using your logic, we should have just ignored Hitler's invasion of Poland, France, etc. After all, that was just a European issue.
The real question is whether our intelligence made an honest mistake, or whether we were negligent in coming to the conclusions that led to the invasion.
Again, I'm not a fan of the Iraq war, but it certainly was appropriate for us to look at Iraq's stance regarding the UN, and use that information however we damn please.
The Intelligence was spot-on in agreement that Saddam was a threat.
Saddam was indebted to many of his neighbors after the Iran-Iraq war. He wanted to drive the price of oil up so he could use oil money to pay off his country's debts. What was Kuwait's response? They increased oil production to keep the price down.
Saddam felt the other Arab countries in the region owed him for keeping the Persians at bay.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002
"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002
"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002
"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
I'll have to dig deeper for global comments.
God help us if you are every in charge of our national security. Or are you just comfortable with France, China and Russia controlling our national security?
Hindsight is always 20/20. Going by the Intelligence we had at the begining of the war, the war was entirely justified. to cry out now that the war is now "illegal" or "unjustified" is revisionist bullshit.
Example:
You are walking down the street and you see a man you recognize from the FBI most wanted list approaching you. He has what looks like a gun in his jacket pocket pointed at you. You believe this man to be armed and dangerous as that is what the FBI poster said.
You decide to risk it and get the drop on him by ducking, pulling out your own gun and shooting him. He dies.
When the cops arrive they find out it is the man but he only had a small water pistol in his pocket.
Was your shooting of the man "justified" or not?
Iraq was required to abide by an inspection process. Iraq continually f*cked with this process. Middle Eastern terrorists were plotting ways to kill Americans. In my book, Iraq was subject to consequences for failing to abide by the inspection process.
It wasn't up to the USA to prove that Iraq had anything. It was up to Iraq to comply with inspections so the existence of WMD could be disproved. Since they didn't cooperate... we get to assume that they have WMD.
Having said that, I wouldn't have invaded. I would have lobbed a few cruise missiles until they got the point. If they didn't, I would have increased my response until they did figure it out.
Even better, many of them were from long before the runup to the invasion, when the threats were indeed more credible. President Clinton responded by authorizing air strikes against suspected weapon manufacturing sites in response. A lot of time passed between then and the invasion, and during that time it became more and more apparent that there were in fact no weapons.
Consider the following, from the US Senate's post-invasion investigation. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html
The intelligence said there was clearly no credible threat. Politicians misinterpreted and mischaracterized the intel in order to push their own agenda.
Our pre-invasion Intelligence said he was a threat and needed to be dealt with. Politicians in the opposition party agreed he was a threat.
Don't you think that if there was a credible source of evidence, in opposition to the pre-war Intelligence, Democrats would have latched onto it to stop the war from happening?
If you want to argue our pre-war Intelligence proved faulty after-the-fact I will agree with you.
If you are trying to imply that we knew ahead-of-time that the Intelligence was faulty then I disagree.
Democracts and Republicans both say : "Let's all steer this boat into the iceberg, it will be awesome!"
Crash!
Democrats say: "Oh shit, that was a bad idea! I don't know what to do, but let's do something to fix this maybe."
Republicans say: "We had to crash into that iceberg. If I had another chance, I'd crash into it again."
I really think they're all idiots, and there's not much we can do to make this situation any better. However, I will at least side closer with someone who says they're going to try to fix it than I will with someone who denies there is a problem.