Here comes the history revision

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by DKSuddeth, Jan 27, 2004.

  1. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040127.wxiraq27/BNStory/Front/

    White House emissaries head abroad to recast war

    Toppling Hussein replaces weapons cache as main justification for U.S.-led attack



    By PAUL KORING
    From Tuesday's Globe and Mail


    Washington — Seeking to recast its reasons for toppling Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, the Bush administration is sending high-ranking officials abroad to justify the war as good for humanity, despite increasing evidence that Baghdad did not possess stockpiles of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

    "The former dictator sits in captivity. He can no longer harbour and support terrorists, and his long efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction are at an end," U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney said yesterday in a speech to political and business leaders in Rome. Today, Mr. Cheney will take the same message to the Vatican on a fence-mending mission to Pope John Paul II, who had condemned the war as a defeat for humanity and whose personal emissary failed to dissuade President George W. Bush from attacking Iraq last spring.

    Mr. Cheney made no mention of recent statements by David Kay, the former chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, who said he does not believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S.-led war began.

    The Vice-President, whose visit to Rome is part of a five-day European swing, has spent much of the past two years in undisclosed locations, rarely making public appearances, except at Republican fundraisers. But as the U.S. election year unfolds, he is expected to make more high-profile trips abroad.

    In Vienna yesterday, Attorney-General John Ashcroft said that even if weapons of mass destruction are never found in Iraq, the war was justified because Mr. Hussein can no longer resort to "evil chemistry and evil biology."

    Mr. Bush laid the groundwork for redefining the war's rationale in his recent State of the Union address. "For all who love freedom and peace, the world without Saddam Hussein's regime is a better and safer place," he said.

    But he made no mention of a rogue regime that posed imminent danger to the United States because of stockpiles of weapons.

    And his Secretary of State, Colin Powell, is sounding increasingly vague about the lack of evidence found in Iraq, despite months of searching. "What is the open question is, how many stockpiles they had, if any. And if they had any, where did they go? If they didn't have any, why wasn't that known beforehand?" Mr. Powell said on the weekend, en route to the Georgia capital of Tbilisi before heading to Moscow to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    Meanwhile, the White House was adamant yesterday that the war was justified. "Saddam Hussein was a dangerous and gathering threat, and the President made the right decision to remove him from power," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. But Mr. McClellan also seemed to suggest that there would be no more pre-emptive wars against rogue regimes, the controversial Bush doctrine that many regard as flouting international law.

    "Iraq was unique," Mr. McClellan said. "Saddam Hussein's regime had weapons of mass destruction, they used weapons of mass destruction on its neighbours and on his own people, and they failed to account for the weapons and weapons programs. . . . Given his history and given the events of Sept. 11, we could not afford to rely on the good intentions of Saddam Hussein."

    But Washington's efforts to recast its justifications for the war seem unlikely to satisfy critics, or defuse it as an election issue. Democratic presidential candidates have stepped up their attacks on the war. "We were misled," said Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, who originally backed the war and is heading into today's New Hampshire primary leading the polls.

    "Misled not only in the intelligence, but misled in the way that the President took us to war."

    Gee, why would they have to resort to something like this if it weren't for the stress on WMD's being the main crux for this war?
     
  2. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    DK, you're just going to have to come to grips with the fact that there were many reasons stated for going to war. Yes, WMD were stressed. No, nothing has been found to date.

    Repeating the WMD over and over won't ever change the fact that there were various reasons given. If people listened throughout the past 13 years and still felt that was the only reason that troops were sent in, then they just didn't listen very well!
     
  3. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    Actually Jim, its the bush admin thats going to have to come to grips that they nowingly misled the world to believe WMD's as the main point for war(despite stating half a dozen reasons to cover their collective ass) and now they may have to answer for that deception.

    Personally, I think all thats going to happen is that Bush will not win re-election simply because the US has a huge reputation for flouting the UN and the world when it comes to war crimes, but thats just me...

    I'm sure that they were listening, Jim, but most of the world felt that Hussein was contained and his 'programs' were just that...programs, and he hardly represented any imminent threat except to those in his own country.
     
  4. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Oh boy, here we go again! Do you have ANY proof whatsover that anyone was 'knowingly mislead'?

    Have you looked at the democratic field lately? Even most Dems are laughing at those dopes.

    And nobody ever stated there was an 'imminent threat'. This is what I'm talking about when I say people weren't 'listening' properly.
     
  5. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    Thats being investigated.

    As more spin from the white house muddies the waters about this war, people will start to feel deceived and turn away.

    In this, you are right. At no time did the words 'Iraq is an imminent threat' come from the mouth of anyone in the administration, but people are a funny creature and the more times someone stresses something (like WMDs) the more important they are going to deem that subject. WMD's were mentioned so many times in comparison to the 'other reasons' that it would be impossible not to state that they were the highest priority and now that there seems to be no evidence....
     
  6. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Well then, I guess it's a bit premature to be throwing around accusations, wouldn't you agree?

    Perhaps, only time will tell. The Dems are doing themselves in in the meantime.

    WMD should have been the highest priority. That still doesn't negate the rest of the reasons. Whether the intel was faulty or not is for another thread, but the fact that there were questions about WMD open for over 12 years is reason enough to put an end to the doubt. We tried to do it 'properly' with inspections, but Saddam never 'fully' complied. As long as there was doubt, the urgency to know for sure was there. Add that together with the humanitarian issues and you have a recipe to remove Saddam and regime ASAP.
     
  7. bamthin
    Online

    bamthin Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    DK,

    I agree completely. In my view, there appears to be alot of back peddling by the bush administration regarding the reasons for pre-emptively invading Iraq. If I recall correctly, most all of the opponents to the war were in support of the ongoing inspections by Hans Blix and his team. I remember thinking "What's the rush?" Well, the "rush", according to Bush, was to get Saddam before he gave his weapons to his buddies in Al-Queda.

    The main reason now appears to be Saddam's human rights atrocities. Some people I talk to think Saddam was still digging mass graves until just before we invaded. The only graves I have seen are 10+ years old. So I am left to wonder, with no impending genocidal doom, no WMD, and no 9/11 ties, Bush has crapped out in a big way here. The common thought, even among my more conservative freinds, was that no WMD would really hurt Bush's re-election chances. That appears to be the case for now.

    I am also really shocked to see how much the US actually knew about Saddam's atrocities and what little was done to stop them as they were occuring. This information, and there appears to be a good deal of it, goes beyond just looking the other way. The US was actually supplying Saddam with intelligence, loans, and dual-purpose equipment like helicopters (which were actually used to gas the Kurds!!). I am still sorting through this body of evidence, but it appears that the US will have a ton of explaining to do when Saddam goes to trial. I wouldn't be suprised if the new Iraqi government names the US accomplices.

    This is all just my opinion anyway. It will be interesting to see how all of this ends up.


    -Bam
     
  8. Psychoblues
    Offline

    Psychoblues Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,701
    Thanks Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Missisippi
    Ratings:
    +143
    The "new" David Kay spin is that it was GWB that was "reasonably" misled by his subordinates. Reckon' how far that bullshit will last amongst reasonably interested/educated Americans?

    Saddam was no longer even a threat to his own people much less to the rest of us. That has also been ascertained by this extensive and expensive war and investigative endeavor. Thousands of innocent Iraqi dead and more than 500 innocent American dead doesn't sit well with most Americans including those of us that call ourselves veterans and base party members. Can you dig it?
     
  9. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    Laughable. The "new spin" still does include the fact that Saddam was in the middle of developing a ricin program. Kay's report did mention that terrorists passed through Iraq often, and that it would have been easy to pass said ricin along in Iraq.

    As far as Saddam non longer being a threat to his own people, I think your definition of threat must be radically different than mine. I have read several statements from Iraqis who lived under his rule that attest to Saddam's imprisonment of anyone who questioned his government's decisions, his imprisonment, rape and torture of family members of said dissenters, and his sadistic sons' behavior. Not to mention his use of chemical weapons against the Kurds. Can you honestly call that "not a threat?"

    Over 500 Americans dead - including several friends of mine - is not a fun price to pay. However, I am convinced that we did the morally correct thing.

    Can you dig it?
     
  10. Psychoblues
    Offline

    Psychoblues Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,701
    Thanks Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Missisippi
    Ratings:
    +143
    I can dig that you think of the Iragi war as a "moral" thing to do. That's about as far as I can go with that other than to ask, "How is WAR moral?"

    Sometimes you have to dig deep into your own heart to justify aggressive action. Defense requires a lesser depth. My submission is that GWB PLAYED upon deeper emotion than was/is justified in this "WAR". I think it's there where YOU fail to "dig it", gop_jeff. But maybe that goes a little beyond your cognitive abilities?
     

Share This Page