NationStates Jolt Archive

In Bush's speech today he accused war detractors and political opponents of trying to rewrite history. Particulary the way most Democrats that supported the fact of wmd and said Saddam was dangerous. Now saying there wasnt and Bush lied. Anyway I have my thoughts on this. What do you think? A bunch of hypocrites or are they justified and why?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/11/bush.intel/index.html

Who, what..?

This is coming from the guy who said that Iraq had WMD and then later says that he never said that.

This is coming from the guy who said that Iraq had WMD and then later says that he never said that.

Indeed...

But really.. is this from Bush's speech..? "Particulary the way most Democrats that supported the fact of wmd and said Saddam was dangerous"...?

It must be a politician thing; Kerry denied the medal flinging and Clinton denied having you-know-what with Monica o_O.

Everyone already knows the war was over oil anyway. That or perhaps Bush's daddy had a li'l vendetta with Saddam.

It seems a bit rum, but you must remeber: if you should ever criticise the chimp, you're letting the terrorists win. This was what his tantrum of a rememberance day speech was all about, after all.

Actually, I think Bush might have a point there. If the democrats did doubt the WMD, they didn't make a big enough deal about it to justify a hindsight epiphany. I certainly don't remember hearing anything about it over here in the UK, and I'd have remembered something that notable.

But if there were no WMD, there were no WMD, and it's not rewriting history to say as much; it's simply chronicling history as it happens.

They're probably trying to make themselves look more dedicated, and more righteous than they really were - but you still shouldn't disregard the obvious failing (and the apparent involvement of people high-up) of the intelligence agencies.

We can all think Iranian cows are pink - it is up to intelligence to confirm or refute it. They didn't do the job, and there is some indication that they were told what to find before they even left.

Actually, I think Bush might have a point there. If the democrats did doubt the WMD, they didn't make a big enough deal about it to justify a hindsight epiphany. I certainly don't remember hearing anything about it over here in the UK, and I'd have remembered something that notable.

But if there were no WMD, there were no WMD, and it's not rewriting history to say as much; it's simply chronicling history as it happens.
There was the whole business of the chap who said it was alarmist nonsense being fired and killing himself, of course. Does that ring any bells? Hutton's enquiry explaining that it was the BBC's bad and not Blair's and all that?

Even France reckoned he probably had them though...they simply wanted to make sure. That's not hipocrisy - just "common sense" if you allow me saying so.

The war fitted into the agenda of the New American Century too well for it to be a coincidence.

In Bush's speech today he accused war detractors and political opponents of trying to rewrite history. Particulary the way most Democrats that supported the fact of wmd and said Saddam was dangerous. Now saying there wasnt and Bush lied. Anyway I have my thoughts on this. What do you think? A bunch of hypocrites or are they justified and why?



While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began," the president said during a Veterans Day speech in Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania.

Rewrite history?
Because, ""Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war"
Well you did mis represent the intelligence and mislead the people. Even if you were wrong, you never apologized Mr. President.
Most people when proven wrong; will admit it: You've turned stubborness into a artform.


No act of ours invited the rage of killers and no concession, bribe or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder," Bush said. "Against such an enemy, there is only one effective response: We will never back down, we will never give in, we will never accept anything less than complete victory."

Um yeah a couple acts of ours did invite rage: Remember when we took over Hawaii without a formal act of war? Yeah well that is a legitamate example of our inviting rage.
How about the Trail of tears and stealing indian terroitory? Well that is legitamate too.
Missiouri mobs attacking and destroying mormon homes and the President did nothing when asked for help? Legitamate too.
How about starting a war with Mecxico for territory? Legitamate too.

These reasons above are reasons why some countries don't like America's actions: the terrorist are just using these reasons for their own purposes, but nontheless we did invite their rage.

National security adviser Stephen Hadley told reporters Thursday that the thrust of Bush's speech "is to continue to talk to the American people about the war on terror, the nature of the enemy, what is at stake (and) the importance that we see it through to success."

So Bush took it upon himself to attack democrats and wrap himself with American flag to stop any responses...

Actually, I think Bush might have a point there. If the democrats did doubt the WMD, they didn't make a big enough deal about it to justify a hindsight epiphany. I certainly don't remember hearing anything about it over here in the UK, and I'd have remembered something that notable.

But if there were no WMD, there were no WMD, and it's not rewriting history to say as much; it's simply chronicling history as it happens.

The Democrats, who are being contientiously excluded from as much as possible, kept in the dark and villified by the Bush administration, were not given the necessary information to make a big deal.

For example:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR2005110501267_pf.html

Not to mention that they knew Niger was bunk and that the aluminum tubes weren't the kind necessary for nuclear use.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36348-2002Sep18?language=printer

Snip

I don't know if we can really say we invited the rage, we being every day American citizens. Our government on the other hand, does have a history of provocation, power plays, pitting one nation against another and manipulating domestic opposition in foreign lands for our own ends. Under Bush, it's had an open policy of pre-emption and a very heavy and imperious diplomatic hand.

I don't know if we can really say we invited the rage, we being every day American citizens. Our government on the other hand, does have a history of provocation, power plays, pitting one nation against another and manipulating domestic opposition in foreign lands for our own ends. Under Bush, it's had an open policy of pre-emption and a very heavy and imperious diplomatic hand.

And under the Rockefeller Memo, we have an secret policy of mudslinging and lying and repeated requests for investigation after investigation until the lies stick.

There was the whole business of the chap who said it was alarmist nonsense being fired and killing himself, of course. Does that ring any bells? Hutton's enquiry explaining that it was the BBC's bad and not Blair's and all that?
That was the Democrats, was it?

Not to mention that they knew Niger was bunk and that the aluminum tubes weren't the kind necessary for nuclear use.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
That one's pretty important, admittedly. Still, I think they really would have needed to kick up a storm about it at the time in order to now claim moral highground. You can't just mumble quietly to yourself about the discrepencies in claims and then later jump up and shout "Aha! I was right! You should all listen to me more!" when it turns out things go your way. It's only when you explicitly warn people about the dangers and consequences of their actions that you get to reprimand them later for not listening to you.

Between Bush's stubbornness and his labeling of his critics as enemies and traitors, he is reminding me of another American president named Lyndon Johnson. Hey, Johnson even led America into a very unpopular war, just like Bush, and we all know how that went.

That was the Democrats, was it?


That one's pretty important, admittedly. Still, I think they really would have needed to kick up a storm about it at the time in order to now claim moral highground. You can't just mumble quietly to yourself about the discrepencies in claims and then later jump up and shout "Aha! I was right! You should all listen to me more!" when it turns out things go your way. It's only when you explicitly warn people about the dangers and consequences of their actions that you get to reprimand them later for not listening to you.

But, but, but, dissenting at that time was labeled "librul treason." Questioning the war was and continues to be equivalent to "hurting the morale of the troops." Dissenting voices were squelched by those who had the power to do the squelching. And then when the opposition party does try to slow down the party in power, it's called "partisan politicking," and dismissed.

So basically, all those dissenting voices who were then silenced and now found to have been right are now being told, "you should have said something!"

Rewrite history?
Because, ""Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war"
Well you did mis represent the intelligence and mislead the people. Even if you were wrong, you never apologized Mr. President.
Most people when proven wrong; will admit it: You've turned stubborness into a artform.

To be fair to Bush, you are acting here like he knew before hand that there were no WMD in Iraq. He didnt. The American, British, Israllie, French, German (basicly most western countries) intellegence services all made the same mistake. He didn't misreperesnt anything. He acted on the infomation he had. If the Democrats supported him then, then now they are wrong as well as him and thus have no place to criticise him

But, but, but, dissenting at that time was labeled "librul treason." Questioning the war was and continues to be equivalent to "hurting the morale of the troops." Dissenting voices were squelched by those who had the power to do the squelching. And then when the opposition party does try to slow down the party in power, it's called "partisan politicking," and dismissed.

So basically, all those dissenting voices who were then silenced and now found to have been right are now being told, "you should have said something!"
Well, they should have! It's not like the opposition party to sit back and accept it when they disagree with the ruling party and the ruling party doesn't particularly want to have to deal with them.

Besides, the British Liberal Democrats did it no problem.

Are you suggesting America is a stifler of free speech? That'd be a turnup for the books.

To be fair to Bush, you are acting here like he knew before hand that there were no WMD in Iraq. He didnt. The American, British, Israllie, French, German (basicly most western countries) intellegence services all made the same mistake. He didn't misreperesnt anything. He acted on the infomation he had. If the Democrats supported him then, then now they are wrong as well as him and thus have no place to criticise him

And yet the French and the Germans were opposed to the War...gee, why was that? Oh, they are surrender monkeys and effete liederhosen wearers. They couldn't have had a rational reason for opposing the war, could they? Like perhaps that they knew the WMD intelligence was ambiguous...that they thought he might have WMD but that the threat was neither dire nor imminent? I guess, in addition to the British (and Polish, don't forget the Polish,) we had a whole lot of international troops helping out?

Wait, Clinton thought they had WMD and were an imminent threat...but he didn't declare War because he was getting a BJ. Riiiiiiight. Clinton, while he suspected Iraq had WMD and used missile strikes to eliminate threats his intelligence suggested, knew they weren't a threat to the US in a way that necessitated a War.



Ya know, there'd be no need to revise history if the Bush administration hadn't been so busy with the scissors and paste already.

Well, they should have! It's not like the opposition party to sit back and accept it when they disagree with the ruling party and the ruling party doesn't particularly want to have to deal with them.

Besides, the British Liberal Democrats did it no problem.

Are you suggesting America is a stifler of free speech? That'd be a turnup for the books.

There ARE procedural processes in Congress that allow the majority party to move past debate. The minority party, aside from things like filibusters (which in turn have been villified,) doesn't have a whole lot of power to shape the debate.

That was the Democrats, was it?
No, that was Blair. And he's as Republican as it's humanly possible to be if you're not Anne Coulter.

:headbang:

No, that was Blair. And he's as Republican and mannish as it's humanly possible to be if you're not Anne Coulter.

Fixed that for you.

Fixed that for you.
Anne Coulter is more mannish than Blair will ever be.

To be fair to Bush, you are acting here like he knew before hand that there were no WMD in Iraq. He didnt. The American, British, Israllie, French, German (basicly most western countries) intellegence services all made the same mistake. He didn't misreperesnt anything. He acted on the infomation he had. If the Democrats supported him then, then now they are wrong as well as him and thus have no place to criticise him
Are you saying because the Democrats might be wrong too that the President doesn't need to admit it to the American people?
Doesn't need to apologize?

I can follow a leader and still criticize him.
Look at Moses he criticized God in the desert when he thought God was being too mean (he lost entry into Promised Land (Isreal) as a result but it needed to be done hehe).

Just because you follow a leader doesn't give him a free pass!

But really.. is this from Bush's speech..? "Particulary the way most Democrats that supported the fact of wmd and said Saddam was dangerous"...?

yeah he did say that. The fact is that Most Democratic Senators did say this. There are sound bytes backing what they said up. Not saying anything either way. Just laying out the facts.

Anne Coulter is more mannish than Blair will ever be.

Exactly my point.

Just because you follow a leader doesn't give him a free pass!

Absolutely, we should hold all elected leaders to the same standards. But what the arguement is that these Senators are now being critical when they said the same thing. To me thats hypocritical. Dont you think?

Exactly my point.
If he had balls he'd have questioned the invasion of Iraq. I'd have thought the American right were glad he's a girly man.

Absolutely, we should hold all elected leaders to the same standards. But what the arguement is that these Senators are now being critical when they said the same thing. To me thats hypocritical. Dont you think?
I wouldn't ignore the fact that the press had largely become mouth pieces for the case for war, and therefore most Americans believed it was a good idea to go (as opposed to pretty much every other Western country).
Politicians, particularly moderate left ones (if we can call the Dems left) seem to be paranoid about being popular these days.
No idea how many Dem-Senators actually believed it, and how many only said what they thought they had to say so as not to look weak on terror.

But that's an unsubstantiated hypothesis, and hardly one we can test.

I wouldn't ignore the fact that the press had largely become mouth pieces for the case for war, and therefore most Americans believed it was a good idea to go (as opposed to pretty much every other Western country).
Politicians, particularly moderate left ones (if we can call the Dems left) seem to be paranoid about being popular these days.
No idea how many Dem-Senators actually believed it, and how many only said what they thought they had to say so as not to look weak on terror.

But that's an unsubstantiated hypothesis, and hardly one we can test.

Very true. The press has many times in the past steered Americans and other westren populace into thinking a certain way. Thats just life and we all need to be smart enough to see through this kind of steering.
I honestly think that most of these people thought that he had wmd and was dangerous. I really couldnt make a case today that he wasnt. It would be very difficult. But one thing is for sure. Politics is a nasty nasty game.

There ARE procedural processes in Congress that allow the majority party to move past debate. The minority party, aside from things like filibusters (which in turn have been villified,) doesn't have a whole lot of power to shape the debate.
I hope you don't mind me saying this, but so much for the champions of democracy. You might want to consider a style of government similar to the current Iraqi one; I hear they're doing pretty well on that front.
<< Original text read: You guys could do with modelling yourselves after the Iraqi system; get more political parties! >>

You guys could do with modelling yourselves after the Iraqi system; get more political parties!
Or Afghanistan...no political parties allowed. :rolleyes:

I hope you don't mind me saying this, but so much for the champions of democracy. You might want to consider a style of government similar to the current Iraqi one; I hear they're doing pretty well on that front.
<< Original text read: You guys could do with modelling yourselves after the Iraqi system; get more political parties! >>

The system isnt perfect. Never has been but I wouldn't support a change to another type of government. I can live with the current failings.

I find it disingenuous to say that others are re-writing history, after his administration continued to fabricate or promulgate WMD claims and ties to al-Qaeda they knew were flimsy or outright discredited.

What was done was done.

Mr. Bush needs to be aware that people can read and view the multiple sources of news and data which might not agree with the way he wishes to shape the Iraqi war.

It is unsurprising that, on Veteran's Day, the Republican president chose to politicize events and polarize the nation.

The purpose of the commemoration of 11:11 AM on November 11th was to celebrate Armistice, and the bringing of peace to the world. "A war to end all wars."

Ironically, just short years later, one of the chief signatories of the Versailles Treaty, and a current member of the "Coalition of the Willing," the United Kingdom, began a systemic repression of the Kurds and Arabs using bombs and poison gas attacks (http://www.againstbombing.org/chemical.htm) to repress the people who had just been "liberated" from the Ottoman Empire.

Long before Saddam Hussein was born, they were perfecting the arts learned in the first World War, and long before the Germans would be castigated at Guernica for the same atrocities, or before the Allies would firebomb Dresden or Tokyo, or before Agent Orange was sprayed on the land and the people of Vietnam.

We are not even a century past the Armistice which ended World War I, or the first commemoration of Armistice Day (http://www.patriotism.org/veterans_day/). In the United States of America it was renamed from a day of the celebration of Armistice into "Veteran's Day" by Congress in 1954*, to honor also those of World War II, and the Korean War. This was commendable. Yet it subtly shifted the meaning of the commemoration during the height of the Cold War.

It recalled the lives and deaths of the soldiers, instead of the state of peace and the ideals that they fought for and achieved.

In Armistice, both the civilians and the soldiers can rejoice. By calling it Veteran's Day, it is often relegated to the cloistered province of only those that served in the military, or those related to those who served.

One need not forget the causes and purposes for which they fought. But often when politicians speak, they change the context from the rememberance of past conflicts into a bit of a spiel on present politics, and a call for support of new war efforts or defense spending. They drape the day in the tones that such is necessary so that these past wars are never repeated.

Sadly, the First World War was not the "war to end all wars," and more soldiers fought in more theatres around the world.

As that first World War recedes into a distant memory, the day has become more and more a time not to recall the horrors of war -- lest they be repeated -- but an opportunity to stump in support of one's favorite present conflict.

The history and purpose of the occasion is being lost in its modernization. It was a day for the Doves, which is now ruled by the Hawks. Perhaps, it will be used in the future as a day to advertise new opportunities for business in the war marketplace.

One cannot dismiss the current conflicts from discussion, but today's speech by the President marked a distinct change from the speeches he gave in 2003 and 2004, which were not politicized so much by the current conflict:

2004 - President Bush Honors Veterans at Arlington National Cemetery (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/11/20041111-3.html)
2003 - President Honors America's Veterans (also at Arlington) (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031111-8.html)

Nor was it the buoyant war-eager tone of the 2002 speech, given after the successful operations in Afghanistan:

2002 - President Bush Salutes Veterans at White House Ceremony (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/11/20021111-2.html)

Nor was it the somber and respectful speech he gave at the Park Avenue Seventh Regiment Armory in New York on the two-month rememberance of the 9/11 attack, which was a mournful and commemorative prayer breakfast. His speech was also filled with the emotions of an angry nation now roused to action:

President Speaks at Veterans Day Prayer Breakfast (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011111.html)

No, today Mr. Bush spoke from an Army Depot in Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania:

President Commemorates Veterans Day, Discusses War on Terror (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051111-1.html)

It was a curious choice for a site. It was not Arlington. Nor the White House. It was not the site of a 9/11 attack. Why, of all places, Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania?

Further, he used the opportunity to push for a broad agenda, such as to ban flag desecration as a Constitutional amendment, and to defend his record for Veteran's benefits.

This was a politization of the day unprecedented in recent years.

He took to denigrate the opposition by dismissing their real grievance. Describing the radical violent Islamicists thusly, "First, these extremists want to end American and Western influence in the broader Middle East, because we stand for democracy and peace, and stand in the way of their ambitions."

No, the reason they want to end American and Western influence is because we stood for imperialist regimes that often brutally repressed people as much as the regimes we were replacing, and defended capitalist enterprises bent on reaping huge profits at the expense of local people. They furthermore are only being reinforced in the belief of the US as a repressive dictatorship when we promulgate a false reason for their dissatisfaction with American policy.

While many of them are apocalyptic jihadi, the reason such fanatacism continues to take root is because there are dissaffected young men and women who are utterly disgusted at how the US can speak about freedom while obliterating swaths of neighborhoods just as brutally as the dictator we are replacing.

He also begs the question, if the mission to liberate Iraq was successful, when will the United States create a plan for withdrawal?

Right now, it's not even on the table.

He's committing the United States presence to Iraq to spite a terrorist.

Which makes no sense if 1. being present only irritates the insurgency thus exacerbating the situation for both the Iraqis and the US, 2. it commits the US to a far more costly strategy to keep its military deployed than to simply pay and support the nascent Iraqi government forces to defend the nation themselves, which is needed in the long-run anyway, 3. it fails to recognize the US has already won the war and 4. prevents the planning for a withdrawal of forces to some more modest and sustainable budgetary level.

In more casual terms, he's sticking around on a street corner after winning the gang fight because the defeated person is saying, "Yeah! Walk away!" And he refuses to on a matter of principle because he's been taunted.

In the overall course of life, one is supposed to win a war, and then have peace, so one can get on with their life.

By committing to a war stance, Mr. Bush commits the US to a freezing of more normalized relations with Iraq. It remains the occupier and protector of the Iraqi government, and not a true and trusting partner.

There are indeed good reasons to be leery of withdrawal from the nation. It could be that a withdrawal of US forces could lead to an utter dissolution of the fragile new national government.

Hence the presentation at Tobyhanna Army Depot (http://www.tobyhanna.army.mil/). It is a logistical support center. A place for electronics supplies, repairs, and transshipments. A symbol that this war was won with materiel, and the logistics of war will still be needed for some time to come.

Tobyhanna is not the front lines in the war on terror. It's the rear echelon. It is a reminder that behind the war is a gigantic squadron of multi-billion-dollar corporate powerhouses that benefit from the sale of equipment rushed through on national defense budgets.

It also alludes to the ever-increasing electronic nature of the battlefield. This war is often being won with ever-sophisticated technology often displacing the presence or obviating the need for men or women of miltary service, or at least, keeping them out of harm's way.

"And the civilized world knows very well that other fanatics in history, from Hitler to Stalin to Pol Pot, consumed whole nations in war and genocide before leaving the stage of history. Evil men, obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience, must be taken very seriously -- and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply."

At first, I was wondering if a neutral observer might be confused. Mr. Bush might consider that, to his enemies, he can be seen as the Hitler or Stalin. To look at it through his enemy's eyes, they are doing precisely this. They see themselves as trying to stop the US before its own crimes can multiply. The irony is that, to them, they percieve the US as being hypocritical in this regard.

This is not to say that the mission in Iraq is as or more evil than the Saddam Hussein Ba'athist regime. In fact, we have a great reason to believe that it will lead to a far freer Iraqi people, especially the Kurds.

Yet he took a belligerent stance today in his speaking. Rather than seek for an armistice and peace on Veteran's Day -- he marginalized and demonized his opponents and made a call for continued war. Even though the war is won.

To be fair, al-Qaeda does demonize -- quite literally -- the US as the Great Satan. They are destructive, horrific zealots. To them, it is a war that is being fought to extinction of one side or the other.

The issue is the swayable Muslim majority. If Mr. Bush behaves and speaks one way, he can halve overnight the sympathizers of al Qaeda and deprive them of their popular supporters. If he behaves and speaks another way, he can reinforce negative opinions of the United States for years and decades to come.

It just made me pause to hear the war-rhetoric of Mr. Bush, and made me wonder whether he might realize that such opinions, while they might be valid before domestic audiences, might be interpreted as disquieting to the international community.

"Defeating the militant network is difficult, because it thrives, like a parasite, on the suffering and frustration of others."

I agree. Fox News should be boycotted.

Curiously, Tobyhanna also has old Yale (http://www.tobyhanna.army.mil/toby/facts/history/yale.html) ties.

* In 2004, Mr. Bush declared November 7 through November 13 as National Veterans Awareness Week (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/11/20041109-5.html). There are now 25 million veterans out of 295 million persons (though very few have seen active combat).

Curiously, Tobyhanna also has old Yale (http://www.tobyhanna.army.mil/toby/facts/history/yale.html) ties.

Curiously, John Kerry has old Yale ties as well. And belonged to Skull and Bones, just like Bush.

Creepy?

Curiously, John Kerry has old Yale ties as well. And belonged to Skull and Bones, just like Bush.

Creepy?
Not really. Most of the ruling class has a lot in common. If they didn't they'd be down in the shit with the rest of us.

I'm at least grateful that you read to the bottom. :)

Not really. Most of the ruling class has a lot in common. If they didn't they'd be down in the shit with the rest of us.

Just like the old days? When you could tell who the King was because he didn't have shit all over him?

Kerry - married to billionairess
- Yalie
- Skull and Bones
- Officer, not enlisted. Never above junior officer. Hero, but takes early out only six months into service with the "three purple hearts and you can ask to go home" option - an option that most did not take.

Bush - born to the purple
- Yalie
- Skull and Bones
- Officer, not enlisted. Never above junior officer. Not a hero, he gets off light in the National Guard, has some fun flying, and works political side jobs

BTW, I don't feel that serving as an officer in command qualifies you to be the Commander-in-Chief. A young lieutenant is barely qualified to command a small vessel, pilot an aircraft, or lead a platoon.

Question: Who the fuck cares about Kerry either way anymore?

Oh, right. The, ". . .but Clinton. . . !" crowd.

Question: Who the fuck cares about Kerry either way anymore?

Oh, right. The, ". . .but Clinton. . . !" crowd.

In case you're wondering, the only reason I brought that up is that it's indicative of the state of American politics - that you get to choose between two flavors of ice cream.

Classic Vanilla, or French Vanilla

And you can have any flavor you like, as long as it's vanilla.

Even France reckoned he probably had them though...they simply wanted to make sure.indeed...Chirac and De-Villerpin were willing to let Blix finish his Job...(innocent until proven guilty)

Bush did not care...he just wanted to invade Iraq.

yeah he did say that. The fact is that Most Democratic Senators did say this. There are sound bytes backing what they said up. Not saying anything either way. Just laying out the facts.

In particular:

Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.

They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.

In other words, "Hey! We were all wrong!"

The problem was that it was the Executive Branch that tailored the presentations that the CIA and other intelligence services gave to Congress.

There was concerted Executive Office interests in presenting an iron clad case before the judgement of the American people and the jury of Congress.

Mr. Bush wished to expand the prosecution of the war from a clear felon in Talibani Afghanistan, to pick up a suspect of Iraq on related charges.

It was the Executive branch that made the appeals before the UN.

While he can cite his predecessor's intelligence and note that it was flawed, it was not Clinton administration policy to chase red herrings in Iraq while actual threats in Afghanistan were known to be the primary targets.

Speaking of re-writing the past -- this is a great obfuscation of the entire intelligence community failure in the run-up to 9/11. In fact, it underscores that failure profoundly.

If we failed to protect thousands of lives because of the intelligence community failure, then committed hundreds of thousands of lives and committed tens of thousands of deaths because of an intelligence failure -- is it wise for Mr. Bush to point fingers and say, "But... but... you all voted! You did! Remember?"

No. Not everyone voted to go into Iraq.

Afghanistan was a clear case.

Iraq was argued for vociferously by the office of the President, and we were told to trust its intelligence. For everything shown to Congress, there were allusions to there being far more that was as yet still not yet revealable. We were told not just that he possessed weapons, but that he was going to immanently use them on the US, or release them to those who would, such as al Qaeda.

Which was not the case. And no Congressional representative from a state voting to trust the word of the President of the United States to commit to a war should be held as accountable as the person in the office that demanded the war be given permiss to proceed.

This was a terrible use of Veteran's Day. It threw the spotlight off of the sake of peace, and became an apology and attempt to prove complicity in others for the flawed causus bellorum.

"The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges."

Yes, that is true. And yet that is precisely what occurred when he accused Saddam Hussein of plans he did not have.

Saddam was guilty of many terrible crimes. He was a brutal dictator. But the threat he posed to the United States was exagerated to win the public approval to go to war.

By expanding the "war on terror" to Iraq, it clearly changed the theatre of operations for Islamic terrorists.

As a pragmatic viewer of international politics, what's done is done. We cannot go back status quo ante. Saddam Hussein and his Ba'athists are gone, and it is possible now for the shattered nation to try to build a democracy for themselves.

If we had simply been told the truth, we might or might not have supported the war. But we were never given that chance.

Already-discredited information was put forth as creditable threats. Rumor-mongering rather than reason drove Washington. It was only possible in a post-9/11 Washington.

Let's be clear in our memories. That's how we got our war.

If the peoples of that region are permitted to choose their own destiny, and advance by their own energy and participation of free men and women, then the extremists will be marginalized, and the flow of violent radicalism to the rest of the world will slow and eventually end. By standing for hope and freedom of others, we make our own freedom more secure.

This was well-spoken. Yet it will be uneasy to transition to this, considering the history of brutality, corruption, and now lawlessness and violence in the country.

"We're standing with dissidents and exiles against oppressive regimes, because we know that the dissidents of today will be the democratic leaders of tomorrow."

Except when we stand with, say, the government of Turkey, who have not been reigning in regional police death squads in persecution of the Kurdish "terrorists."

"Throughout history, tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that murder is justified to serve their grand vision -- and they end up alienating decent people across the globe. Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that regimented societies are strong and pure -- until those societies collapse in corruption and decay. Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that free men and women are weak and decadent -- until the day that free men and women defeat them."

I kept wondering if Mr. Bush was referring to himself, or those of the hard-core right who continue to castigate and repress political moderates as "traitors."

This entire Veteran's Day speech takes the light off the people of the armed forces, and puts Mr. Bush in the center stage. He's asking implicitly how we judge him, and how history will judge him.

My own feeling is that he led the United States to do the right thing in the wrong way at the wrong time for the wrong reasons, and with insufficient planning, a half-baked strategy and typical minimal-request-maximal-actual military budget.

I support the mission now as a matter of pragmatic fait accompli, but I hold Mr. Bush accountable for orchestrating what has turned out to be the 21st Century's great boondoggle.

My own take is that the Administration lied, even subconsciously, because it felt that the US would not go to war unless it felt the threat was immanent. So it exaggerated the dangers in order to get approval for the expedition.

It was likely the right thing to do for the region regardless. We could have done it sooner after the 1991 war. However, political queasiness to continued presence in the Middle East at that time led to us pulling out and leaving Saddam Hussein in power.

It was only the post-9/11 world where it became possible to consider miltary occupation and protectorate a la a post-war Germany or Korea.

I only wish the US public and Congress had been given a chance to vote on the actual issues at hand -- toppling Saddam Hussein for humantarian and long-term political stability reasons -- rather than prop him up as a WMD and terrorist scarecrow.

And yet the French and the Germans were opposed to the War...gee, why was that? Oh, they are surrender monkeys and effete liederhosen wearers. They couldn't have had a rational reason for opposing the war, could they? Like perhaps that they knew the WMD intelligence was ambiguous...that they thought he might have WMD but that the threat was neither dire nor imminent? I guess, in addition to the British (and Polish, don't forget the Polish,) we had a whole lot of international troops helping out?

Wait, Clinton thought they had WMD and were an imminent threat...but he didn't declare War because he was getting a BJ. Riiiiiiight. Clinton, while he suspected Iraq had WMD and used missile strikes to eliminate threats his intelligence suggested, knew they weren't a threat to the US in a way that necessitated a War.

Ya know, there'd be no need to revise history if the Bush administration hadn't been so busy with the scissors and paste already.

The French have economic interests in Iraq, which have now been severely disrupted by what the Americans have done. They refused to go in becuase the economic ties they had with Iraq were too strong.

LONDON, Feb 23 (AFP) - 02:40 GMT - French President Jacques Chirac's diplomatic campaign to block war with Iraq is merely the product of French commmercial interests masquerading as a moral case for peace, a top Pentagon adviser said Sunday.

"What you're hearing is what the French President perceives to be in the interests of France. And the French president has found his own way of dealing with Saddam Hussein," Richard Perle said in an interview with The Observer.

"It would be counter to French interests to destroy that cosy relationship and replace it with a hostile one," Perle said.

The remarks follow anger in Washington at France, which earlier this month -- with German and Belgian support -- opposed US requests that NATO boost defenses for Turkey in the event of war with Iraq.

Both France and Germany have taken a strong stand against a US-led war on Baghdad.

According to Perle, the French position against regime change in Iraq is fatally undermined by its multi-billion-dollar oil interests negotiated since the last Gulf war in 1991, The Observer said.

"There's certainly a large French commercial interest in Iraq, and there are contracts that a new government in Iraq may not choose to uphold, partly because they're so unfavourable to the people of Iraq," Perle told the paper.

"Saddam has been prepared to do deals to keep himself in power at the expense of the people," he said.

"My understanding of the largest of these deals, which is the French Total-Fina-Elf contract to develop certain oil properties in Iraq, is that it is both very large and very unfavourable to the Iraqis," Perle said.

The Pentagon adviser said he was "rather pessimistic that we (the US) will get French support for a second resolution authorising war.

"I think they will exercise their veto, and in other ways obstruct unified action by the Security Council: they're lobbying furiously now," he told the paper.

I'm astonished that anyone for a single moment would accept that a President and Commander and Chief of the United States of America, who led the country into war, based on 'absolutely certain proof' of something that no proof could in fact have existed of, is not ultimately responsible.:eek:

Are people sure they are not confusing the implications attached to the Presidency of the USA with some other office?




Surely people realise the 'King George' references were jokes? :confused:

The French have economic interests in Iraq, which have now been severely disrupted by what the Americans have done. They refused to go in becuase the economic ties they had with Iraq were too strong.
Everyone had economic interests in Iraq. Halliburton traded with the Saddam Regime quite heavily for example - and the ties between the US Government and Haliburton are as strong as any I've seen.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/24/80648.shtml

You see that money does not always equate with policy (Cheney apparently changed his mind...maybe after hearing that Halliburton would get reconstruction deals).
Fact is that the Iraq war fits the bill for a New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm) project perfectly, and that is underscored if you look at the people in that club.
France on the other hand had other reasons for its opposition (and seeing that the links between business and government are weaker in France than in the US, that point fades away even further).

LONDON, Feb 23 (AFP) - 02:40 GMT - French President Jacques Chirac's diplomatic campaign to block war with Iraq is merely the product of French commmercial interests masquerading as a moral case for peace, a top Pentagon adviser said Sunday.
That's the kind of mud-slinging we heard enough of, I think.