The Democrats should better point out the fact that death panels already exist. Bring forward the American families who have lost loved one’s because THEIR insurance company denied them coverage for necessary life-saving procedures. It’s not uncommon.
dcl
It is indeed quite common.
The issue the democrats have is that they are doing a s*#& job selling the plan to the public and allowing the opposition to control the story line. Obama needs to get out in front, seize the bully pulpit and beat the Republicans over the head with this crap. Hell, come out and say that the provision being described as death panels was a measure insisted upon by the Republicans.
For a man that did an artful job of messaging during the campaign he sure is crap at it now that he is president.
Say what you will about Bush, the SOB knew how to use the power of the office.
Sandy Underpants
Bush got everything passed because Republicans are a galvanized party that runs on “Groupthink”. Every Republican radio host said the same things with the same opinions 24 hours all day every day, Fox News offered the same talking points, same commentaries, Republican voters repeated the mantra (and apparently believed it as well). There just was no deviation of thought or internal debate within the Republican party. 9/11 = Saddam Hussein, we must attack Iraq, you’re unamerican if you disagree or question, “We WILL find the WMD”. Etc. That’s why Bush didn’t have to use a veto until halfway through is 2nd term on the issue of stem cell research.
Democrats on the other hand, aren’t organized and aren’t united behind a clear single agenda.
dcl
Well, when you put it that way… It would be nice if the Democrats could get their butts in gear. But unfortunately to quote John Gruber “There is a reasoned, civic, nationwide debate re: health care reform between conservatives and liberals — within the Democratic Party.”
Well, it’s not bad that there is a debate on healthcare, just that the Democrats can’t seem to agree on a message… Which is more or less sinking the ship because the health insurance companies sure as S#$*tin can agree on a message: if health care is reformed there will be squads of people in lab coats running around shooting grandmas… And while that might be a funny idea for a Terry Gilliam or Simon Pegg movie it really doesn’t do the country much good. Hmm, perhaps I should pitch a screen play… Think Shaun of the dead meets Novocaine / little shop of horrors meets 12 Monkeys… Yes I can see it now… A post apocalyptic world in which Grandmothers have been turned into sadistic brain eating zombies. And the only thing that stands between the earth and utter annihilation is a renegade anesthesiologist and his beautiful ER doctor girlfriend. Together they they dispatch the Grandmothers using complicated NHS paper work and a cricket bat. Early on the they must battle against the hospital administrator, played by Bill Nighy (Not that Bill Nye, this Bill Nighy) but he finally gets in on the game just in time to be eaten by a zombie played by a cross dressing Michael Palin and, for good measure, Helen Mirren.
David K.
I think it should be Bill Nye not Bill Nighy, I mean Mr. The Science Guy showed his acting chops on that one episode of Stargate Atlantis.
Chris Evans
” 9/11 = Saddam Hussein, we must attack Iraq, you’re unamerican if you disagree or question, “We WILL find the WMD”.”
That is a tremendous load of horseshit.
The administration’s position was that we needed to oust Saddam EVEN THOUGH he was not connected to 9/11. “Saddam Hussein supports terrorists” is not the same as “Saddam Hussein is behind 9/11”.
As for labeling people “unamerican” for dissent, that’s probably not something the left should talk about right now, but the kind of thing that got that label was “we support our troops when they frag their officers” and folks who were hoping that we’d be defeated and/or lose a lot of troops. I’m going to go ahead and say that it is, in fact, unamerican to call for murder and to hope that our soldiers die.
And we DID find WMDs – but not in the quantities that Saddam said he had… that everybody thought he had, including people who opposed the invasion. I recall hearing the argument that we shouldn’t invade because he’d use WMDs against our troops.
dcl
Hmm, there is enough re-writing of history in that statement that I’m not even sure it bears refuting.
First, the administration went out of their way to imply a connection between Saddam and 9/11 to the point where a significant percentage of Americans (those that watch Fox News presumably) thought they were indeed linked by the time we invaded Iraq. But even if you were right on the first part you are wrong on the second part. Iraq was not a haven for terrorists and or sponsor thereof prior to our invasion of the country. Both the State Department and the CIA agreed on that point. That it is now is directly related to our invasion of the country. Following the Iran Iraq war terrorists caused insatiability within the country and Saddam actively worked to keep them out, again so said both the State Department and the CIA. What Iraq was was a totalitarian state ruled over by an evil man who repeatedly and regularly murdered and tortured the people of Iraq to consolidate and maintain his power over the country. Saddam’s primary objective was his own power and glorification.
I know of no one that said troops should frag their officers, no one that hoped we would loose, and no one that hoped a lot of people would die as a result. That may have been the characterization of the descent presented on Fox News, I don’t know as I prefer actual legitimate information instead of bullshit propaganda, but saying that that was the nature of the decent is, at its best, disingenuous. If not simply flat out wrong.
And we did NOT find WMD, contrary to the statements of Faux News. Had WMD been found Bush would have been seen ridding around the White House lawn on them T-Bone Pickens style. What we did find was labs that had been used to make WMD during the Iran Iraq war. Empty canisters that were all 20 plus years old. Rusted out missile parts and other detritus scattered about the desert from WMD projects. None of which were shown to have any likelihood of having been used since the cessation of hostilities following the first Iraq war. No evidence was found that any functional chemical or biological or other WMD existed or was produced within the country following the first gulf war.
Most people had a suspicion that Saddam possessed WMD. However, despite their suspicions State Department intelligence argued that there was nothing that confirmed their presence. Likewise the State Department suggested that the political situation in Iraq and neighboring countries would likely lead to a cluster fuck if we invaded. The CIA and military intelligence branches also only possessed innuendo that there was WMD in Iraq but not hard evidence. And the general strategic analysis by career Military and Intelligence officials was that invading Iraq would be folly. Beyond that I do recall that people argued WMD might be used against our troupes… In the run up to the first gulf war. A point that was indeed a legitimate concern at the time. I do not recall that being an argument leading up to the second gulf war. Though I cannot prove that it was not made at all.
For my part I always took the case for WMD as unproven. And that the demands that Saddam prove he did not possess WMD to fly in the face of logic. It was our duty, as the invading nation of a sovereign power, to prove our case. This is something we simply did not do. It turned out we were wrong, and unfortunately we made the region a bigger mess than when we started.
So unfortunately, regardless of wether or not Sandy’s comment is, as you say, a tremendous load of horse-shit, it goes without doubt that yours most certainly is.
Joe Mama
I’m hesitant to wade into this crapfest, but I can’t help myself since dcl’s comment contains a good load of horseshit as well.
Iraq was not a haven for terrorists and or sponsor thereof prior to our invasion of the country.
I know of no one that said troops should frag their officers, no one that hoped we would loose, and no one that hoped a lot of people would die as a result.
So? Fallacy. You also weren’t looking very hard (see, e.g., here.). Obviously that sentiment is not shared by a majority of dissenters of the Iraq War, but it’s likely shared by, oh say, a percentage equal to the number of right-wing protesters who are against paying any taxes whatsoever, who want to see a black president fail, etc.
I do recall that people argued WMD might be used against our troupes… In the run up to the first gulf war. A point that was indeed a legitimate concern at the time. I do not recall that being an argument leading up to the second gulf war. Though I cannot prove that it was not made at all.
That’s because it was an argument made by critics in the run up to the second gulf war as well.
For my part I always took the case for WMD as unproven. And that the demands that Saddam prove he did not possess WMD to fly in the face of logic. It was our duty, as the invading nation of a sovereign power, to prove our case. This is something we simply did not do. It turned out we were wrong, and unfortunately we made the region a bigger mess than when we started.
Then your understanding flies in the face of history the relevant UN resolutions. The Security Council clearly and unequivocally placed the burden on Iraq — which had been found in material breach of its obligations to disarm going back over a dozen years and countless resolutions, and thus was not an innocent party — to disarm openly and cooperate with inspectors. The Security Council unanimously found that he did not do this — the debate was over what to do about it and what “serious consequences” should mean in the context of the resolutions. Moreover, the AUMF passed by the Senate listed 23 reasons for going to war, only a few of which dealt with WMDs. WMD was certainly the main reason, and contrary to Chris Evans, none were ever found in meaningful quantities, but WMD was still one reason among many. And I absolutely disagree that Iraq is worse off now than it was 7 years ago. Not by a longshot.
dcl
Umm hmm… Okay. Right… So to show that Saddam sponsored terrorists you link to an article that is highly equivocal but at most says that Saddam might have sort of supported terrorists that were trying to destabilize Iran and other regional powers (but not including Israel) In other words terrorist organizations that if they existed and were sponsored by Iraq posed no credible threat to the US and in fact might have posed a threat, if they existed, to those that the US has antagonistic diplomatic relations with. Hardly a cause of us to go to war.
A random photo is fairly unconvincing of much of anything… these are fun too while we are at it. I especially like the guy in the middle of that first one. And on the topic, the sign says shoot not frag, there is a technical difference there… I highly doubt the frag the officers contingent was anywhere near as main stream as the groups you mention or the Birthers for that matter.
The argument on WMD is rather circular. I read KOS as saying if the President is right and if Saddam has WMD these would be the dangers. Whereas if the President is wrong the Casus belli is no more. But in either case is the war worth it. Which is not the same as saying they expect our troupes to be gassed.
Now as to WMD, first off, it is impossible to prove a negative. There is a reason that in a court of law the burden of proof is placed on the prosecution. That is simple logic. And in the run up to the war it annoyed me to no end that this simple issue was completely ignored including by Brendan, and by David K, both of whom I recall being fairly hawkish at the time. My position was and is that the Casus belli is unproven by our government and that because of that we either need to state other supportable intentions or prove our case with something more than innuendo and hear say. Most of Europe was not against invading Iraq per se, but rather did not think the case for doing so had been made sufficiently. Though legitimately the French government was attempting to protect some of their own privet business interests and therefore dragging their feet. I was not specifically against going to war. I just really wanted the case for doing so to be made clearly, succinctly and undeniably. Bush decided to go to war anyway, and it turned out the evidence simply was not there. These are fairly incontrovertible facts, are they not?
The security council did indeed find that Saddam didn’t fulfill his obligations. However, they did not find that he had WMD. And in the wake of the Iraq war it also turns out he did indeed get ride of the weapons. It is also true that WMD was not the sole reason. But it was the primary reason and it was the reason along with links to terrorists that threatened the US that the nation was told we had to go to war. Both of those points are demonstrably false.
Now as Brendan was want to repeat actions should and do have consequences as well as words do indeed have meanings. The Security council never decided what those should be (the consequences that is) and Bush decided to go cow boy on Saddam’s ass before they arrived at a decision that might have lead to a much broader and substantive coalition. The reason was that the weapons inspectors were sensitive to one rather important issue on the ground that was totally ignored by the US. The military and political situation between Iraq and Iran. The best way I can explain this is by analogy. During the hight of the Cold War would you tell Russia that, as the President of the United States, you had decided to unilaterally completely disarm the US nuclear program and eliminate all nuclear stock piles and that in fact you had just finished doing so? How about if you had done something like that would you do your absolute best to make sure the Russians thought it was at least possible you were holding something back? Right, I thought so.
As to weather Iraq is better off now or worse of now, I don’t know. I’ve not been there. Neither before or after the war. And I don’t know that there is a poll of Iraqi citizens that asked are you better off now than you were eight years ago… Probably because most of them don’t have phones, clean water, or electricity now. Things they had eight years ago, though admittedly very tightly rationed.
The other question is is the US in a better position now than we were 7 years ago? I think the answer is pretty clearly NO. Geo politically we have lost a significant amount of clout and respect by both our allies and our foes. Again geo politically the middle east is more of a powder keg than ever with anti-American sentiment running high and less fringe than it was before we invaded. We have pretty clearly not made ourselves any safer. In terms of human life the US has lost a significant number of service men and the armed forces are having difficulty recruiting do to the majority of those of service age viewing the war in Iraq as illegitimate. It will take significant time to re build our armed forces and in the mean time we are totally ill-equipped to handle a confrontation with North Korea or Iran among others. So strategically we are in a corner and the region is more volatile. Economically our nation is in free fall do in no small part our effort to buy a war on credit. We have spent a truly insane percentage of GDP on Iraq and have seen little to no benefit from our efforts. Nor have we made any real efforts to handle the budget deficits brought about by trying to fight two wars at the same time. At the same time we have repeatedly cut taxes. And when taxes aren’t being cut people are complaining about them, especially Republicans that in the same breath say we need to balance the budget. Our completely irresponsible fiscal behavior as a nation from the micro level to the macro level is directly related to the complete economic meltdown we are currently suffering through. Obviously that is all opinion, but I think that a position that the US is better off now than before we invaded Iraq is almost completely untenable. For those scoring at home I recall an analysis that showed for the amount of money we’ve spent in Iraq we could have gotten nationalized healthcare and made Social Security completely solvent possibly more than once. I think we would have gotten a lot more bang for our buck and saved a lot more American lives if we has just bought healthcare.
Chris Evans
Thanks Joe, that saved me some time searching.
“we did NOT find WMD” is a false statement. There were both chemical weapons and components for a nuclear program found in Iraq after the invasion. (http://www.slate.com/id/2107972/). You should not construe that to mean that I am saying, or believe, that we found the stockpiles we expected. I apologize for being unclear on that.
I was well aware of the potential problems involved in removing Saddam from power. I was studying IR at USC during the first Gulf War, and was taking two relevant courses at the time; the reasons not to do it were the same in 2003 as they were in 1991. That’s not to set myself up as an expert – the issues are pretty well known at this point, because almost all of those “potential problems” proved to be actual problems once we got rid of Saddam – I won’t say all; I think there were one or two things that we worried about that didn’t happen – and many of them are ongoing.
What changed was the other side of the equation. Saddam spent the intervening years rebuilding his armed forces (poorly), attacking our planes, violating UN resolutions, building palaces with with Oil for Food money, bribing people to the tune of $21 Billion, etc. Post-9/11, we were motivated to do something about it.
Doc
I agree totally, and am not in any way the same person.
OK, that’s not true. I just decided to go pseudonymous (spelled that one right on the first try!) and be like the cool kids. But from now on I’ll be posting as Doc. Again. Although I reserve the right to switch to Giant Foreign Devil at some point.
Sandy Underpants
“Then your understanding flies in the face of history the relevant UN resolutions. The Security Council clearly and unequivocally placed the burden on Iraq — which had been found in material breach of its obligations to disarm going back over a dozen years and countless resolutions, and thus was not an innocent party — to disarm openly and cooperate with inspectors. The Security Council unanimously found that he did not do this — the debate was over what to do about it and what “serious consequences” should mean in the context of the resolutions.”
I don’t know how to do Italics. The UN set the rules to disarm and UN Weapons Inspectors (led by Hans Blix) were in Iraq in 2002 and 2003, and were given access to every suspected site, and they determined that there were no WMD and no valid reason to justify attacking Iraq or even indicting them for not complying with the UN sanctions. The UN did not sanction or encourage attacking Iraq for their alleged violations, and the UN is the only authority who ought to authorize war for violating their own sanctions. The US Violated the UN’s wishes by going to war with Iraq. Why do Republicans so easily forget these facts? Inspectors asked for more time to continue searching for WMD and Bush said, “get out of Iraq, we’re going to war” (with no legitimate evidence for our case to go to war).
Ugh: 45% of Americans believe, falsely, that Obama will create death panels
….And 90% of Republicans.
The Democrats should better point out the fact that death panels already exist. Bring forward the American families who have lost loved one’s because THEIR insurance company denied them coverage for necessary life-saving procedures. It’s not uncommon.
It is indeed quite common.
The issue the democrats have is that they are doing a s*#& job selling the plan to the public and allowing the opposition to control the story line. Obama needs to get out in front, seize the bully pulpit and beat the Republicans over the head with this crap. Hell, come out and say that the provision being described as death panels was a measure insisted upon by the Republicans.
For a man that did an artful job of messaging during the campaign he sure is crap at it now that he is president.
Say what you will about Bush, the SOB knew how to use the power of the office.
Bush got everything passed because Republicans are a galvanized party that runs on “Groupthink”. Every Republican radio host said the same things with the same opinions 24 hours all day every day, Fox News offered the same talking points, same commentaries, Republican voters repeated the mantra (and apparently believed it as well). There just was no deviation of thought or internal debate within the Republican party. 9/11 = Saddam Hussein, we must attack Iraq, you’re unamerican if you disagree or question, “We WILL find the WMD”. Etc. That’s why Bush didn’t have to use a veto until halfway through is 2nd term on the issue of stem cell research.
Democrats on the other hand, aren’t organized and aren’t united behind a clear single agenda.
Well, when you put it that way… It would be nice if the Democrats could get their butts in gear. But unfortunately to quote John Gruber “There is a reasoned, civic, nationwide debate re: health care reform between conservatives and liberals — within the Democratic Party.”
Well, it’s not bad that there is a debate on healthcare, just that the Democrats can’t seem to agree on a message… Which is more or less sinking the ship because the health insurance companies sure as S#$*tin can agree on a message: if health care is reformed there will be squads of people in lab coats running around shooting grandmas… And while that might be a funny idea for a Terry Gilliam or Simon Pegg movie it really doesn’t do the country much good. Hmm, perhaps I should pitch a screen play… Think Shaun of the dead meets Novocaine / little shop of horrors meets 12 Monkeys… Yes I can see it now… A post apocalyptic world in which Grandmothers have been turned into sadistic brain eating zombies. And the only thing that stands between the earth and utter annihilation is a renegade anesthesiologist and his beautiful ER doctor girlfriend. Together they they dispatch the Grandmothers using complicated NHS paper work and a cricket bat. Early on the they must battle against the hospital administrator, played by Bill Nighy (Not that Bill Nye, this Bill Nighy) but he finally gets in on the game just in time to be eaten by a zombie played by a cross dressing Michael Palin and, for good measure, Helen Mirren.
I think it should be Bill Nye not Bill Nighy, I mean Mr. The Science Guy showed his acting chops on that one episode of Stargate Atlantis.
” 9/11 = Saddam Hussein, we must attack Iraq, you’re unamerican if you disagree or question, “We WILL find the WMD”.”
That is a tremendous load of horseshit.
The administration’s position was that we needed to oust Saddam EVEN THOUGH he was not connected to 9/11. “Saddam Hussein supports terrorists” is not the same as “Saddam Hussein is behind 9/11”.
As for labeling people “unamerican” for dissent, that’s probably not something the left should talk about right now, but the kind of thing that got that label was “we support our troops when they frag their officers” and folks who were hoping that we’d be defeated and/or lose a lot of troops. I’m going to go ahead and say that it is, in fact, unamerican to call for murder and to hope that our soldiers die.
And we DID find WMDs – but not in the quantities that Saddam said he had… that everybody thought he had, including people who opposed the invasion. I recall hearing the argument that we shouldn’t invade because he’d use WMDs against our troops.
Hmm, there is enough re-writing of history in that statement that I’m not even sure it bears refuting.
First, the administration went out of their way to imply a connection between Saddam and 9/11 to the point where a significant percentage of Americans (those that watch Fox News presumably) thought they were indeed linked by the time we invaded Iraq. But even if you were right on the first part you are wrong on the second part. Iraq was not a haven for terrorists and or sponsor thereof prior to our invasion of the country. Both the State Department and the CIA agreed on that point. That it is now is directly related to our invasion of the country. Following the Iran Iraq war terrorists caused insatiability within the country and Saddam actively worked to keep them out, again so said both the State Department and the CIA. What Iraq was was a totalitarian state ruled over by an evil man who repeatedly and regularly murdered and tortured the people of Iraq to consolidate and maintain his power over the country. Saddam’s primary objective was his own power and glorification.
I know of no one that said troops should frag their officers, no one that hoped we would loose, and no one that hoped a lot of people would die as a result. That may have been the characterization of the descent presented on Fox News, I don’t know as I prefer actual legitimate information instead of bullshit propaganda, but saying that that was the nature of the decent is, at its best, disingenuous. If not simply flat out wrong.
And we did NOT find WMD, contrary to the statements of Faux News. Had WMD been found Bush would have been seen ridding around the White House lawn on them T-Bone Pickens style. What we did find was labs that had been used to make WMD during the Iran Iraq war. Empty canisters that were all 20 plus years old. Rusted out missile parts and other detritus scattered about the desert from WMD projects. None of which were shown to have any likelihood of having been used since the cessation of hostilities following the first Iraq war. No evidence was found that any functional chemical or biological or other WMD existed or was produced within the country following the first gulf war.
Most people had a suspicion that Saddam possessed WMD. However, despite their suspicions State Department intelligence argued that there was nothing that confirmed their presence. Likewise the State Department suggested that the political situation in Iraq and neighboring countries would likely lead to a cluster fuck if we invaded. The CIA and military intelligence branches also only possessed innuendo that there was WMD in Iraq but not hard evidence. And the general strategic analysis by career Military and Intelligence officials was that invading Iraq would be folly. Beyond that I do recall that people argued WMD might be used against our troupes… In the run up to the first gulf war. A point that was indeed a legitimate concern at the time. I do not recall that being an argument leading up to the second gulf war. Though I cannot prove that it was not made at all.
For my part I always took the case for WMD as unproven. And that the demands that Saddam prove he did not possess WMD to fly in the face of logic. It was our duty, as the invading nation of a sovereign power, to prove our case. This is something we simply did not do. It turned out we were wrong, and unfortunately we made the region a bigger mess than when we started.
So unfortunately, regardless of wether or not Sandy’s comment is, as you say, a tremendous load of horse-shit, it goes without doubt that yours most certainly is.
I’m hesitant to wade into this crapfest, but I can’t help myself since dcl’s comment contains a good load of horseshit as well.
Iraq was not a haven for terrorists and or sponsor thereof prior to our invasion of the country.
False.
I know of no one that said troops should frag their officers, no one that hoped we would loose, and no one that hoped a lot of people would die as a result.
So? Fallacy. You also weren’t looking very hard (see, e.g., here.). Obviously that sentiment is not shared by a majority of dissenters of the Iraq War, but it’s likely shared by, oh say, a percentage equal to the number of right-wing protesters who are against paying any taxes whatsoever, who want to see a black president fail, etc.
I do recall that people argued WMD might be used against our troupes… In the run up to the first gulf war. A point that was indeed a legitimate concern at the time. I do not recall that being an argument leading up to the second gulf war. Though I cannot prove that it was not made at all.
That’s because it was an argument made by critics in the run up to the second gulf war as well.
For my part I always took the case for WMD as unproven. And that the demands that Saddam prove he did not possess WMD to fly in the face of logic. It was our duty, as the invading nation of a sovereign power, to prove our case. This is something we simply did not do. It turned out we were wrong, and unfortunately we made the region a bigger mess than when we started.
Then your understanding flies in the face of history the relevant UN resolutions. The Security Council clearly and unequivocally placed the burden on Iraq — which had been found in material breach of its obligations to disarm going back over a dozen years and countless resolutions, and thus was not an innocent party — to disarm openly and cooperate with inspectors. The Security Council unanimously found that he did not do this — the debate was over what to do about it and what “serious consequences” should mean in the context of the resolutions. Moreover, the AUMF passed by the Senate listed 23 reasons for going to war, only a few of which dealt with WMDs. WMD was certainly the main reason, and contrary to Chris Evans, none were ever found in meaningful quantities, but WMD was still one reason among many. And I absolutely disagree that Iraq is worse off now than it was 7 years ago. Not by a longshot.
Umm hmm… Okay. Right… So to show that Saddam sponsored terrorists you link to an article that is highly equivocal but at most says that Saddam might have sort of supported terrorists that were trying to destabilize Iran and other regional powers (but not including Israel) In other words terrorist organizations that if they existed and were sponsored by Iraq posed no credible threat to the US and in fact might have posed a threat, if they existed, to those that the US has antagonistic diplomatic relations with. Hardly a cause of us to go to war.
A random photo is fairly unconvincing of much of anything… these are fun too while we are at it. I especially like the guy in the middle of that first one. And on the topic, the sign says shoot not frag, there is a technical difference there… I highly doubt the frag the officers contingent was anywhere near as main stream as the groups you mention or the Birthers for that matter.
The argument on WMD is rather circular. I read KOS as saying if the President is right and if Saddam has WMD these would be the dangers. Whereas if the President is wrong the Casus belli is no more. But in either case is the war worth it. Which is not the same as saying they expect our troupes to be gassed.
Now as to WMD, first off, it is impossible to prove a negative. There is a reason that in a court of law the burden of proof is placed on the prosecution. That is simple logic. And in the run up to the war it annoyed me to no end that this simple issue was completely ignored including by Brendan, and by David K, both of whom I recall being fairly hawkish at the time. My position was and is that the Casus belli is unproven by our government and that because of that we either need to state other supportable intentions or prove our case with something more than innuendo and hear say. Most of Europe was not against invading Iraq per se, but rather did not think the case for doing so had been made sufficiently. Though legitimately the French government was attempting to protect some of their own privet business interests and therefore dragging their feet. I was not specifically against going to war. I just really wanted the case for doing so to be made clearly, succinctly and undeniably. Bush decided to go to war anyway, and it turned out the evidence simply was not there. These are fairly incontrovertible facts, are they not?
The security council did indeed find that Saddam didn’t fulfill his obligations. However, they did not find that he had WMD. And in the wake of the Iraq war it also turns out he did indeed get ride of the weapons. It is also true that WMD was not the sole reason. But it was the primary reason and it was the reason along with links to terrorists that threatened the US that the nation was told we had to go to war. Both of those points are demonstrably false.
Now as Brendan was want to repeat actions should and do have consequences as well as words do indeed have meanings. The Security council never decided what those should be (the consequences that is) and Bush decided to go cow boy on Saddam’s ass before they arrived at a decision that might have lead to a much broader and substantive coalition. The reason was that the weapons inspectors were sensitive to one rather important issue on the ground that was totally ignored by the US. The military and political situation between Iraq and Iran. The best way I can explain this is by analogy. During the hight of the Cold War would you tell Russia that, as the President of the United States, you had decided to unilaterally completely disarm the US nuclear program and eliminate all nuclear stock piles and that in fact you had just finished doing so? How about if you had done something like that would you do your absolute best to make sure the Russians thought it was at least possible you were holding something back? Right, I thought so.
As to weather Iraq is better off now or worse of now, I don’t know. I’ve not been there. Neither before or after the war. And I don’t know that there is a poll of Iraqi citizens that asked are you better off now than you were eight years ago… Probably because most of them don’t have phones, clean water, or electricity now. Things they had eight years ago, though admittedly very tightly rationed.
The other question is is the US in a better position now than we were 7 years ago? I think the answer is pretty clearly NO. Geo politically we have lost a significant amount of clout and respect by both our allies and our foes. Again geo politically the middle east is more of a powder keg than ever with anti-American sentiment running high and less fringe than it was before we invaded. We have pretty clearly not made ourselves any safer. In terms of human life the US has lost a significant number of service men and the armed forces are having difficulty recruiting do to the majority of those of service age viewing the war in Iraq as illegitimate. It will take significant time to re build our armed forces and in the mean time we are totally ill-equipped to handle a confrontation with North Korea or Iran among others. So strategically we are in a corner and the region is more volatile. Economically our nation is in free fall do in no small part our effort to buy a war on credit. We have spent a truly insane percentage of GDP on Iraq and have seen little to no benefit from our efforts. Nor have we made any real efforts to handle the budget deficits brought about by trying to fight two wars at the same time. At the same time we have repeatedly cut taxes. And when taxes aren’t being cut people are complaining about them, especially Republicans that in the same breath say we need to balance the budget. Our completely irresponsible fiscal behavior as a nation from the micro level to the macro level is directly related to the complete economic meltdown we are currently suffering through. Obviously that is all opinion, but I think that a position that the US is better off now than before we invaded Iraq is almost completely untenable. For those scoring at home I recall an analysis that showed for the amount of money we’ve spent in Iraq we could have gotten nationalized healthcare and made Social Security completely solvent possibly more than once. I think we would have gotten a lot more bang for our buck and saved a lot more American lives if we has just bought healthcare.
Thanks Joe, that saved me some time searching.
“we did NOT find WMD” is a false statement. There were both chemical weapons and components for a nuclear program found in Iraq after the invasion. (http://www.slate.com/id/2107972/). You should not construe that to mean that I am saying, or believe, that we found the stockpiles we expected. I apologize for being unclear on that.
I was well aware of the potential problems involved in removing Saddam from power. I was studying IR at USC during the first Gulf War, and was taking two relevant courses at the time; the reasons not to do it were the same in 2003 as they were in 1991. That’s not to set myself up as an expert – the issues are pretty well known at this point, because almost all of those “potential problems” proved to be actual problems once we got rid of Saddam – I won’t say all; I think there were one or two things that we worried about that didn’t happen – and many of them are ongoing.
What changed was the other side of the equation. Saddam spent the intervening years rebuilding his armed forces (poorly), attacking our planes, violating UN resolutions, building palaces with with Oil for Food money, bribing people to the tune of $21 Billion, etc. Post-9/11, we were motivated to do something about it.
I agree totally, and am not in any way the same person.
OK, that’s not true. I just decided to go pseudonymous (spelled that one right on the first try!) and be like the cool kids. But from now on I’ll be posting as Doc. Again. Although I reserve the right to switch to Giant Foreign Devil at some point.
“Then your understanding flies in the face of history the relevant UN resolutions. The Security Council clearly and unequivocally placed the burden on Iraq — which had been found in material breach of its obligations to disarm going back over a dozen years and countless resolutions, and thus was not an innocent party — to disarm openly and cooperate with inspectors. The Security Council unanimously found that he did not do this — the debate was over what to do about it and what “serious consequences” should mean in the context of the resolutions.”
I don’t know how to do Italics. The UN set the rules to disarm and UN Weapons Inspectors (led by Hans Blix) were in Iraq in 2002 and 2003, and were given access to every suspected site, and they determined that there were no WMD and no valid reason to justify attacking Iraq or even indicting them for not complying with the UN sanctions. The UN did not sanction or encourage attacking Iraq for their alleged violations, and the UN is the only authority who ought to authorize war for violating their own sanctions. The US Violated the UN’s wishes by going to war with Iraq. Why do Republicans so easily forget these facts? Inspectors asked for more time to continue searching for WMD and Bush said, “get out of Iraq, we’re going to war” (with no legitimate evidence for our case to go to war).
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/feb/14iraq1.htm