Diane Sawyer listed people who said there was no evidence of WMD's and called Bush and his advisors for using language that mistakenly cited definitive evidence of chemical as well as nuclear WMD's. Diane asked, What would it have taken for you to believe there were no WMD's in Iraq? Don't you think that the evidence needed to go to war would have to be irre...
Bush interupted and said that Saddam is dangerous and the US and the world is safer without him.
Diane tried to ask the question again. Bush said, "You can ask the question as many times as you like; I made the right decision for the United States." ************************************************
Obviously this is paraphrased, but I think the sense is accurate.
Am I taking this the right way? Were we going to go after Iraq whether or not there was evidence of WMD's?
[ December 16, 2003, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: LadyDove ]
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Yes. I think the Bush administration's stupidest idea was making the political battle over the war in Iraq all about WMD's. I think they really did believe the weapons were there, and that the evidence would eventually bear them out ... but seriously, this was going to bite them in the behind somehow or other.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
Diane vs. Bush - Diane clearly wins because she's much better looking.
Yes, we were going into Iraq whether there were WMDs or not. It was planned since 9/11, because 9/11 was a great excuse to expand our foreign policy boundaries by creating the Bush Doctrine. Speeches were carefully crafted to allow for widespread definitions of who the enemy was. If they had kept it narrowed down to al Qaeda and OBL, we wouldn't have been able to invade Iraq half as easily as we did. Instead, they used language like "Axis of Evil", "you're with us or against us" that left our options open.
Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
We know there were WMDs because many of them were provided by us. Now don't take this the wrong way, recall that Iraq was previously at war with a country that held like 50 embassy staff hostage for over a year. Yeah, we sold weapons to both sides. It was a real mess.
That is why changing the Iraq regime stabilized the region. I didn't really buy that argument until I knew Saddam was in custody, and suddenly it did feel a lot more stable. And if we do wind up with a viable ally in Iraq, Israel will not be as isolated. Turkey has walked that line for a long time.
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
Saddam was a Bad Man. Thats why we took him out. At least thats what Bush used to Sawyer
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Wait, skrika, you're saying that right now, the Middle East is more stable than it was before we went to war with Iraq, and that it's because of that war that it became so? How's that? You could make an argument that eventually that region will be more stable because of the war, but I don't see how you could say that it's more stable right now. Convince me.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
BookWyrm... that is certainly my personal rationale for the war, so I'm cool with that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I like the fact that Bush is so inclusive a president that we're all being encouraged now to come up with PERSONAL rationales for the war, since the official rationales were all bogus. It's a way of encouraging participation in our democracy.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Yes Tom, he's a true visionary.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
I think Hussein's genocidal use of chemical weapons against citizens of his own country was one of the reasons Bush ennumerated, smartasses.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Why beat around the Bush? Of course we were going into Iraq no matter what. Bush just needed an excuse because everyone else knew invading a country just because we didn't like them was grossly wrong. If Bush had just said "We're going to invade Iraq because Saddam is bad," there'd have been complete public outrage abroad and in the U.S.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The Shell Game.
Why war with Iraq in the spring of 2002?
Three reasons given.
1) Sadaam was a bad man, who tortured and killed his own people for pleasure and profit.
This is true, but it was true in the winter of 2001, and the Summer of 2000. It was true before 9/11 and before President Bush Senior came to office. While this answers the Who, it does not answer the Why Now, and there were/are good reasons why the war should have been done earlier or later--our recession and our war on terrorism are the two prime ones.
2) The War on Terrorism
Sadaam supported Palestinean Terrorists and reports indicate that he may have connections with Al-Queda.
But he didn't. He had no substantial connections with Al-Queda. President Bush has admited this publicly, in an effort to stop Cheney from speaking out of turn.
Sadaam, desparate for money, might have sold his WMD information to true terrorists. Of course, the fact that he had billions in oil revenue coming in from illegal oil sales does not prop up the idea that he was short on cash. Nor does there yet appear to be any WMD information for him to sell.
Instead we come across as an oil-hungry beligerent super-power who will crush and kill anyone we wish. This increases the power of our enemies to atrract and recruit more terrorists.
3) WMD. He can gas American troops and interests (ie Isreal) with WMD--Biological, CHemical, and possibly Nuclear weapons were being developed.
None have been found, despite assurances that "we know he has them and we know where they are."
I fell for this argument. It is why I supported the war. It is why I feel betrayed by the facts as we know them.
What is predictable is that if you question President Bush about the flaws in any of these reasons, he and his followers, automatically switch to one of the other too reasons.
"What would have proven to you that there were no WMD?"
"We didn't go after him for WMD. We invaded because he needed to be removed."
Instead of asking him again, if she would have asked "Why did he need to be removed then, with our economy in a depression and the war on terrorism in full swing" I believe that he would have answered along the lines that Iraq is part of the battle in the War on Terror.
And if she would have followed up with a question about Sadaam not having terrorist connections, I believe he would have answered, "But he could have sold his WMD information to terrorists. That was the threat." That also would lead us back to WMD.
Which ever shell you pick, the pea, we are told, is under another one.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dan_Raven said: He had no substantial connections with Al-Queda. President Bush has admited this publicly, in an effort to stop Cheney from speaking out of turn.
Can you source this, please. The only such admission I’ve seen is Bush saying there’s no hard evidence linking Sadaam to 9/11.
Dagonee
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Sorry, I stand corrected. He did limit his comments to 9/11, not Al-Queda.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
quote:I think the Bush administration's stupidest idea was making the political battle over the war in Iraq all about WMD's.
I agree Geoff. If we were going to go in without global support, I'd have alot more respect for our actions if we'd have given a laundry list that explicitly included Saddam still being accountable for waging war on Kuwaitt and his treatment of the Kurds.
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
Lady Dove,
Bush did say something about waging war on other countries and hurting his own people. That was one of the rationale for war, he gave examples of mistreatment of the Iraqi people in speech. He talked about this on multiple occassions. Bush had more reasons than WMD to go to war, and he said what they were in his speech.
Saddam raped his own people. He had people on government pay roll for the sole purpose of raping and murdering the families of people who did not support him. Didnt you hear about his torture chambers? And rape rooms?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)