Anyhow, the whole transcript is here (warning, faint of heart: the motives of some war opponents are called into question at points in the transcript), but here was the section that jumped out at me:
">Now, I'm going to explain to you the relevance of 9/11 to Iraq. You're president of the United States, we've just been hit on 9/11, and it's worse than Pearl Harbor, and there are threats of more such acts. We've got 14 failed resolutions of the UN Security Council for Saddam Hussein to let weapons inspectors in there to make sure that he's not building chemical, biological, and other weapons of mass destruction. He's flaunting his nose.And, no, I haven't watched the SOTU--it's too easy to catch it on-line at a less inconvenient time.
We know that bin Laden and other Al-Qaedas had been given safe haven in Iraq in the nineties. It's called preemption. It would have been irresponsible to not take action based on what every intelligence service in the world said and what we knew of Saddam's previous use of chemical weapons on his own people. It's a different day after 9/11, sad to say some people can't come to grips with this. You just can't put your head in the sand and say, you know, this 9/11 is just an episode, and we're going to have to learn to live with these things because there's nothing we can do to stop it. If that's the attitude, then we're going to have more and more and more of them. Now the downfall of all this is we face the same situation in Iran. And, by the way, this scenario is starting to get awfully familiar. Iran's refusing to let UN inspectors in. Why, where have I heard this before? Iran won't let 30 US nuclear inspectors in to see what's going on.
This little Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, you must think he's kidding when he threatens to end Israel's existence and then come after us. You must think he's kidding, he's being a blowhard. But people in positions of responsibility who have a constitutional duty to protect the country can't pretend he's joking. They can't pretend that Saddam Hussein was a blowhard. It's their job. So that's why we went to Iraq while we were in Afghanistan. We didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. Oops. Big problem. But we knew they were there. Still don't know what happened to them, but they were there. The sad thing about talking to you, Gentry, is you sound like a smart guy it, a little smug, but you sound like a smart guy, and you know everything that I just told you. Well, maybe you don't, depends on what news you listen to.
There's no hope that we're going to achieve victory over this enemy when half the country is being led by a party which is trying to secure our defeat, for the sole purpose of winning their own power back and defeating and humiliating George W. Bush. Where's the resolution for victory? Where's the resolution to defeat these guys? You going to dump on Liz Cheney because she writes something critical of Hillary Rodham? What, is Hillary untouchable now?
22 comments:
Liz Cheney's op-ed was the subject of my most recent post, particularly the superb on-line comments of readers reaction. I think readers summed it up pretty well.
Rush misled when he said, "14 failed resolutions of the UN Security Council for Saddam Hussein to let weapons inspectors in." To infer weapons inspectors were not allowed in Iraq is a brazen lie. UNMOVIC and the IAEA were active in Iraq, moving freely and securely destroying weapons, none that could be classified as WMD, but were making progress, destoying such things as Al Samoud missiles and securing warehouses of explosives. You can read their reports for yourself. Even if these inspections were just marginally effective, they were better than invading and killing a hundred thousand Iraqis.
It was Bush that pulled out weapons inspectors on the eve of war. According to their daily log, UNMOVIC/IAEA were destroying weapons right up to the day they filed their last report on March 13, 2003. The inspectors were making progress... moving around Iraq safely, just a year later later Americans were being beheaded.
Bush didn't listen to the generals, he couldn't get our democratic ally Turkey to use as a staging ground, and Bush couldn't wait... so he invaded without enough troops to secure the country. The result? Hundreds of tons of explosives secured by weapons inspectors were left unguarded and are now are in the hands of insurgents, undoubtedly being used against us. Some of the sites looted contained radioactive material that could be used in a 'dirty bomb.'
Limbaugh is a lying drug addict pig that uninformed and weakminded people tend to believe ... for unknown reasons.
I haven't looked anywhere to see what Rush is saying about claims that he uttered a "brazen lie," but I would suspect that you are interpreting "inspectors being allowed in the country" with "inspectors being allowed to inspect anywhere they want, without advance notice in the country."
But what's ironic (I'd say disingenuous, but I'm not sure you are aware of the disconnect) is that you (and others) pretend that these facts--the ones you have dumped in my comments section, are not things that we are just now learning. Apparently, there were a lot of people (including every voting Democrat senator, I think) that viewed the facts as stated the same way as Dubya. Why is he therefore evil/incompetent/etc. and they're not?
By the way, William, I guess you're saying you're more informed and less weak-minded than me?
William, The links you provided hardly prove your point: that inspectors had free rein in Iraq, or there was conclusive submission by Iraq to international organizations.
And regarding "invading and killing Iraqis," the death of Iraqi innocents is certainly tragic, but Saddam was famous for killing Iraqis and how long would you have put off the inevitable conflict or how much longer would you have risked American lives to protect Iraqis?
'Ned Williams,'
Of course, every voting Democratic senator voted for the resolution. They based their decisions on the information handed to them. And in effect, whether you believe this to be the case or not, if the information was in fact tainted by the Bush adminstration as reported by the Downing Street Memo and foreign press, why should they be held accountable for believing the facts as they were presented? It's a line repeated ad naseum by the 'liberal' media, but Saddam was being contained. The tripe conserves regularly cite about Saddam's crimes against humanity took place during the 1980s when our American government funded Saddam's regime and then private-citizen Donald Rumsfeld was dispatched to improve US-Iraqi relations. We supported Saddam at the height of his dictatorship, even as he ruthlessly had long-range nuclear aspirations that would “probably” include “an eventual nuclear weapon capability;” had harbored known terrorists in Baghdad; had abused the human rights of his citizens; had possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people. This happened 20 years ago, 'Ned Williams.' Saddam's most recent reign was in place to starve the fractions with fear, because despite the warring fractions, they all feared Saddam. What we have now is utter and complete chaos. The 'fractions' that once feared Saddam are turning against themselves. And for a man who entered the war not even knowing these fractions existed, I believe ACK's assertion that this was a 'wrongheaded' blunder.
Good for you, Joey.
What exactly did the infamous "Downing Street Memo" say?
If America were to pull out of Iraq, how will you and others "handle" dictators and oppressive regimes from this point forward? We certainly can't use force against them . . .
And if you want to be able to comment on my blog, lose the quotation marks around my name . . . using your return key wouldn't be a bad skill to pick up either.
I only use quotations marks because you snarkily use them when referencing Aunt B., whom, most bloggers who interact with her socially at WKRN's blogger functions know as Betsy. That's not a startling revelation there, 'Ned.'
I think it's passivity on the part of conservatives, an almost intellectual negligence, even, to think that liberalism equals pacifism.
Certainly, war is an incremental yardstick when dealing with oppressive dictatorships. But what Joey stated above is that the information was tainted. That has nothing to do with handling oppressive dictatorships. Apples and oranges.
I know why you used them, Joey, why do you think it irritated me.
But it wasn't "snarkily" and I haven't had the opportunity to meet her or you at any blogger events so I didn't--until she went berserk at someone putting her screen name in italics, know her real name was Betsy and I'm really looking forward to the next event where we can agreeably disagree on political issues.
Perhaps tvonthefritz, but that's not what I said. I was responding to the assertion that we are evil or liable or unable to condemn Saddam because--as Joey argued, "we funded Saddam the dictator." I agree that such foreign policy strategies may be wrong, but that is exactly what the ISG and many in the Democrat party are claiming ought to be done right now . . . some version of RealPolitik. So someone like Joey has either not thought it through or thinks that noone will notice that they're demagoguing an issue.
Hey EG, your post has been moderated. But please come back when you have something constructive to say.
Ned,
To your questions -"Why is he therefore evil/incompetent/etc. and they're not?"
Answer - because Bush - the Decider - had information congress did not and he revealed only the info that would support his case, like the aluminum tubes farce that he used in the SoTU address. Bush knew there was ample evidence from 2 governmental sources (DOE and the State Dept) and one independent source (IAEA) to refute the claim, yet he, Cheney and Rice used it with talk of mushroom clouds to sell their agenda with fear. Just one of several examples I can cite.
-----
"...how long would you have put off the inevitable conflict or how much longer would you have risked American lives to protect Iraqis?"
Inevitable conflict? You mean like the one the GOP controlled congress vigorously opposed in Kosovo that Clinton won in 100 days without loss of American life with a clear plan and decisive exit strategy? I don't get what you're talking about here unless Dick Cheney had put the fear of Saddam in you. Are you refering to Saddam's imminent threat to America? A 2-bit dictator with no WMD, no airforce, and a minimal army... hemmed in by no fly zones, satellite surveillance, sanctions, weapons inspectors, and probably special forces we don't even know about? Surely you have more than aluminum tubes to base your fear on?
Hope this answers your questions.
BTW... Bush's war has killed more Iraqis in 4 years than Saddam did in more than a decade.
Oh, you failed to mention all that scary information that Bush snowed Dem senators with. Why didn't they see how UNMOVIC etc. had the situation under control and see Bush's scare tactics for what they were? Oh, and you ought to list Powell in your criminal lineup, too.
While I don't think it was a bad policy move (esp. since no Americans died--by the way, don't you care about the innocent Kosovars that died?), the Kosovo conflict was actually somebody else's conflict, and was only arguably related to our interests.
Iraq was ready, willing and able to become a terrorist state and needed to be dealt with following 9/11. It was unfinished business, it seems.
You may be right about the number of Iraqi dead at the hands of Saddam vs. in the war, but sorry if I won't take your word on it. Likewise, sorry if I'm not willing to dig up evidence to prove your argument for you.
In any event, sympathy for oppressed Iraqis was only one impetus for removing Saddam. I'm much more interested in protecting Americans (and certainly that's what a U.S. President is supposed to be concerned about).
But I guess you didn't buy all that Kerry and Edwards were saying in the 2004 about the great threat we face in suitcase bombs or shipping container bombs? An indignant and uncompliant Saddam was capable of and intent on helping Islamists injure America, don't you think?
Kerry/Edwards made the issue of suitcase bombs to draw attention to the lack of funding for, and outsourcing of our port security.
The point is, we had time. Bush had time to continue to press the Saudis and continue to try and bribe Turkey with incentives and to exercise diplomacy to create a coalition commensurate with the task at hand, a coalition of the type as suggested by some of Bush's military advisors that were dismissed, a coalition like the type his father put together in Desert Storm, a diplomatic coalition as the Iraqi Study Group had suggested. Due to Bush 'cowboy diplomacy' - the Iraq War, far from won has now cost ten times the US cost of Desert Storm, and that will likely increase to 20x, possibly leaving us and the region worse off, in quagmire.
You and all who read this should listen to Sen. Chuck Hagel's (R-NE) speech this morning during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting on the resolution against the president's troop increase in Iraq. Note, Hagel is a decorated Vietnam Vet (unlike say Bush and Cheney).
William said, "Note, Hagel is a decorated Vietnam Vet (unlike say Bush and Cheney)."
Or unlike Howard Dean . . . or you? I'd posit that I can match your "decorated vets" and experts man for man so an "appeal to authority" is not an argument here.
But, you may be right, William, and maybe--even though the circumstances are different, even though the known risks are different, even though it hadn't succeeded in removing Saddam as a risk, even though every foreign intelligence service and voting Democrat agreed--your current strategy proposal could succeed. But that doesn't make Bush & Co. incompetent, eeevul, criminal perps, etc. Does it?
We'll see what comes out in the Libby trial. So far it's looking very bad for the VP. BTW - in case you missed it, I thought Paul Begala's take on the Cheney CNN interview was superbly accurate.
Yes, we will see, and unless Fitzgerald has been holding back on other evidence he has, his opening statement indicates he is shamefully appealing to prejudice on the jury to win a conviction.
Gosh, what are "legal experts" saying about the prosecution of Libby; I guess I'll read your link and find out.
Limbaugh lies about Obama, then makes racist slur against Obama and Halle Berry calling them a "Halfrican Americans." Limbaugh - a great role model for conservatives everywhere.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200701240010
What irks me about Iraq is you have the Vice President going on CNN yesterday describing the US effort in Iraq as "enormous successes" and all criticisms as "hogwash".
What irks me about Iraq is that some people are so delusional that they unconditionally believe everything this guy says. That's what's most disturbing.
Well, I don't think that comment is funny; however, I do agree with the statement he made about the war in Iraq, which is what this post was about. I guess I'll stop modeling my life after his; dang.
Gee EG, for some reason I doubt your characterization of Cheney's comments are accurate: "the US effort" as "enormous successes"? Is that verb agreement issue yours or his? Have there not been any enormous successes in Iraq as far as you're concerned?
"All" criticisms as "hogwash"?
Who, around here anyway, "unconditionally believes everything" Cheney says? I certainly see some around here who knee-jerkedly disbelieve everything he says.
The Vice-President of Iraq, Adel Abdul Mahdi said on Thursday at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, "Iraq was put under occupation, which was an idiot decision."
So? What's your point? Maybe we should beat him up for daring to call our decisions idiotic . . .
Williams, I'm guessing you would say that we shouldn't have gone in there without overwhelming force and shouldn't have tried to rely heavily on Iraqis to bring stability?
Post a Comment